Me? Submit to Her?

When considering passages of Scripture that are misused by abusers, there may be no more commonly misused passage than Ephesians 5. This misinterpretation centers around two concepts: submission and headship. In this article we will be looking at submission, and we will look at headship in a later article.

Also, as we mentioned in a previous article, the meaning of the word that we translate “submit” depends entirely on the nature of the relationship under consideration. It is common to hear interpreters take particular notice that it is a “military term.” This is sometimes used to assert that the word creates an imbalanced relationship, where one person must do what the other says, like a general commanding a soldier. When applied to a military relationship, that is actually true, but it is a fallacy to suggest that all uses of the word carry this same shade of meaning.

In Ephesians 5:21, we can observe that “submission” is used with a much different meaning. The core command of this passage is actually found in verse 18, where we are told to be filled with the Spirit. In verse 21, being filled with the Spirit is applied to the relationships between fellow believers in the church. This is to say that Spirit-filled believers are instructed to be submissive to one-another. No class of people is left out of this command, and it contains no implied hierarchy.  

All are commanded to be equally submissive; this renders the military metaphor entirely inadequate. In a group of equals, having everyone act as if they are in charge would result in one extremely destructive power struggle. However, if everyone assumes a submissive role with respect to everyone else, you would end up with a much more cooperative environment. This “cooperation” is the sense of the word as it is used in verse 21. We can see this same idea in Philippians 2:3-4: “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”

From these two passages, we can deduce that Paul is teaching the believers to assume a mutually submissive / cooperative role in all their relationships inside the church. That provides the overarching principle that Paul then takes opportunity to explain in the following verses. He is essentially answering the question, “What does that submission look like in this particular kind of social relationship?” 

The truth is that society has all kinds of power-imbalanced relationships, and we frequently accept them in a variety of contexts. For example: our relationships with lawyers, doctors, and law enforcement are all imbalanced with respect to their social power. This is one reason that we expect that power to be conditioned on a kind of submission. We see this plainly with a lawyer’s commitment to fight for the best interests of their client, with a doctor’s commitment to do no harm, or with a law enforcement agency that is to protect and serve. 

Similarly, Paul is not giving instructions for relationships that are exceptions to mutual submission. Rather, he is explaining how mutual submission will actually soften or ultimately eliminate the power imbalance in these relationships. If we jump down to the slave’s relationship in verses 5-9 of Chapter 6, we can see how this plays out there. 

Mutual submission would be no great challenge for the slave, at least the submissive part. Their position in the power-imbalanced relationship of Roman society would be automatically submissive, but Paul directs them to alter their self-perception with respect to this submission. They are to operate within the social relationship with a very different perspective. They are to be submissive without hypocrisy, considering themselves a bond servant of God (not a man). They are to have a heart of goodwill, doing their service as to the Lord. As a Christian, their true master is Jesus, and they are merely submitting to their earthly masters as a way to glorify Christ. 

Interestingly, the master is told to “do the same things to [their servants], giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” In other words, the Christian master is to behave with mutual submission to the slave, not as an authoritarian. The reason is that there is no master / slave status with God. Both are on equal footing. We really see this play out in Philemon, where the master is encouraged to treat the slave as a brother and fellow servant of Christ.

It is significant that Paul respects Philemon’s social position as the master, even while he alters the relational patterns between him and Onesimus. This letter to Philemon provides an interesting insight into Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5. He is not working to destroy all outward forms of imbalanced social order. Such overt political anarchy would not be in keeping with a Christian’s rightful comportment with respect to the world. However, where Christians are following Christ, mutual submission will effectively flatten the power dynamic, subverting but not necessarily or immediately eliminating the social structure of the relationship.

Working backwards in the passage, we can see another imbalanced power dynamic, between the father and child. This relationship is somewhat different from the master and slave in that God specifically commands children to obey (different word) their parents, which comes with a promise. However, even in this relationship, we see a flattening of the power dynamic. The father lives in mutual submission with their children by speaking and behaving toward them in such a way as to avoid provoking them to anger. In order to do this, they are to take a nurturing and proactive approach to their teaching. A Christian father will be serving his children rather than using them to serve him.

This brings us back to the husband and wife relationship, which is treated with an extended discussion partly because Paul seems to want to wax eloquent regarding the church (see verse 32). Most “Christian” abusers work very hard to avoid the bulk of this passage. They would rather use pieces of this passage that really apply to the church as a means to press the wife into an idolatrous relationship where the abuser is treated as if they are the wife’s sanctifying influence (thus replacing the Holy Spirit) or as if they have the same authority as Jesus (effectively making themselves lord). 

They will frequently abuse 1 Peter 3:6 as suggesting that their skewed interpretation of this passage is the correct approach for the Christian wife because “Sara called Abraham, Lord.” We will address this passage in a later article, but for now we can make a significant observation: Even if we were to grant an authoritarian approach regarding the meaning of “headship” and accept the husband’s role as actually being lord in the home, an abusive husband’s assumption of power is still effectively flattened by their responsibility to submit to their wife with a relationship that is nourishing, rather than harsh. It will be a relationship that is marked by the love of Christ, who served and sacrificed, who did not come to condemn or to crush. 

Herein we see two significant problems: 

First, too many pastors seem to assume that the reason the abusive husband isn’t Christlike is because the wife isn’t submissive. This wrongly blames the wife for the husband’s sin, and it is obviously false, since Jesus’ example is to love us first, while we were enemies, to serve us even when we are undeserving, and to sacrifice everything for our best interests. Like God’s patient love for Israel personified in Hosea, it shouldn’t matter at all how the wife behaves.

Second, they wrongly take a passage that is intended to explain to each person how they are to be cooperative and submissive in their various relationships, and then they use that passage as a tool to allow the powerful side of the relationship to behave badly toward the other. Do not forget what we learned when looking at Genesis 3. The curse created an imbalanced power dynamic in the marriage, and Paul is showing the husband what it looks like to move closer to a pre-fall marriage relationship.

An authoritarian relationship cannot effectively exist where a husband is Christlike and the wife’s submission to Christ is respected, and that brings us to the wife and verse 22. This is a favorite verse for “Christian” abusers to misuse. Many a victim has been coerced into a dangerous form of subjection by using “submission” to give their husband an unquestionable power that they are required to obey. There is a big problem, though. There is no command to submit in this verse. 

There is no verb “submit” in verse 22. Instead, the verb must be supplied by carrying forward the mutual submission commanded in verse 21. In other words, the wife’s submission to the husband is identical to his submission he owes to the rest of the church (including her). 

There is no new and enhanced submission command given to the wife. Paul knows that the curse predicted a power struggle in the husband / wife relationship. He knows that those in power are likely to use such a command as a way to further entrench their privilege as if it is a divine entitlement. Abuse, at its core, is a problem of worship and idolatry, and the abuser wants to claim a loyalty and obedience that is equivalent to God in the relationship. That isn’t what Paul is teaching. Just as with the slave, the wife is given a command that redirects her loyalty and submission toward Jesus.

It should be fairly obvious that these verses explaining the Christian marriage are not describing the dangerously dysfunctional relational system that develops around an abusive husband. Mutual submission works precisely because both are submitting to one another. When one person refuses to participate in this sanctified arrangement, the relationship can no longer operate under a Christian paradigm. Being more submissive cannot have a sanctifying effect, changing the husband. She cannot be his Holy Spirit any more than he can be hers. 

In this passage, Paul is teaching a principle that actually should flatten the power imbalance that sin introduced into the marriage relationship. It should undermine the abusive relationship rather than empower it. Using this passage to spiritually validate the effect of the curse is like strapping a well dressed corpse onto the back of the wife and then asking her to pretend that everything is as it should be. It is a grave miscarriage of justice and definitely does not honor God’s plan for the Christian marriage.