- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/22)
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/23)
The Source of Submission
- 10/22/07
- 27
Is submission a consequence of man's fall into sin?
The concept of submission is a tough one to get our minds around. There was a time when I'm sure it came more naturally to people--a time when inequality and hierarchy were assumed. In that kind of social situation I'm sure submission would seem more natural. But today, when we acknowledge that all men (and women) are created equal and when and when there are few things we value higher than equality, submission seems like a relic of the past. And yet the Bible is clear that submission is a duty we all share. All of us are to submit to God and to submit the the authorities He has placed over us. And then there is the one that continues to raise eyebrows: women are to submit to their husbands.
I have often been challenged with the subject of submission and how it relates to the role of women in a marriage relationship. In particular, I have been challenged to understand and then prove that the submission prescribed by Scripture is inherent in God's created order. In other words, the fact that women are to submit to their husbands is not merely the product of the Fall of the human race into sin, but is a product of God's creation. Even if sin had never entered the world, a wife would still be expected to submit to her husband. Having studied this issue I believe that is a fair statement and wrote this brief article in an attempt to prove my understanding.
I have discussed this topic with several women and have been a little bit surprised by their reactions. It seems to me that women would be glad to know that the idea of submission precedes the fall. This shows us that the headship of the husband is not rooted in a punishment, and perhaps even an unfair punishment where woman was given the harsher penalty of having to submit, but is rooted in the very purpose and creation of mankind. Yet women have told me that they prefer to think that submission is a product of the Fall. Perhaps this shows just what a poor job the church has done in teaching this subject and what a poor job husbands have done in making submission joyful. Or maybe this is simply society echoing even in the church.
Strange though it may seem, submission is a good and beautiful and godly thing. The most perfect relationship in the world, the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, displays a perfect example of submission. The Son submits Himself to the Father. They are, to echo the Shorter Catechism, "the same in substance, equal in power and glory." Yet the Father demonstrates headship. We speak of Jesus' mission to the earth in two ways. We speak of Jesus being sent by the Father. And this is true. From eternity it was decided by the Father that man would have to be ransomed by a perfect substitute. The Father tasked the Son with this responsibility. But we also speak of the Son willingly giving up his life. These are both true. The Son's perfect submission to the Father's will meant that a command of the Father is indistinguishable from a decision of the Son. Christ was perfectly willing to submit to His Father's will. This relationship within the Trinity provides us many clues as to the nature of the relationship between husband and wife.
So let me provide ten proofs that submission precedes the Fall and is part of God';s natural order. We will follow the structure outlined by Wayne Grudem in his thorough study on the subject, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.
- The order of creation: Adam was created before Eve. This may seem to be weak grounds for an argument yet it was significant enough for Paul to mention in 1 Timothy 2:12-13 where he does not "permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man...For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Inherent in the order of creation is the foundation for the order of human relationships.
- The representation of the human race: It was Adam who had a special role in representing the human race. Though Eve was the first to sin, it was Adam who was considered most responsible for their combined disobedience. In Corinthians we read that, "as in Adam all men die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Christ is the second Adam, not the second Eve as we might expect if the Bible held Adam and Eve as being equal in representation and headship.
- The naming of woman: Adam was given the honor and responsibility of naming his wife. "She shall be called woman," he said, "because she was taken out of man" (Genesis 2:23). Within the Scriptures we see that the person who names something is always the one who has authority over it. This parallels the account of creation where God named the night and the day, the expanse, the earth and the waters. By naming them He showed His authority. And in naming Even Adam proved his headship.
- The naming of the human race: The human race is named after Adam, not Eve. Neither is it named after both Adam and Eve. God named the human race "man." "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created" (Genesis 5:1-2). While this does not provide a cut and dry case, it points again to the headship and leadership of the man in the created order.
- The primary accountability: God held Adam primarily accountable for the Fall. While Adam and Eve hid from God, God called "to the man and said to him, 'Where are you?'" (Genesis 3:9). God did not call to both Adam and Eve, but called to Adam alone. Dr. Grudem draws an analogy of a parent who, upon entering a room where several children have been misbehaving, will summon the oldest and demand answers. It is the oldest who bears greatest responsibility. In the same way God summoned Adam and demanded an account of both his sin and that of his wife. Notice that Satan reversed this order, approaching Eve before Adam in an obvious (and successful) attempt to disrupt the God-given pattern.
- The purpose of women: Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve. While feminists have made much of the term "helper," the fact remains that in any given situation, the person doing the helping necessarily places himself in a subordinate role to the person needing help. Yet helping does not remove accountability. While I may help my son with a paper route, the ultimate responsibility is still his. Eve's role, from the beginning of creation, was to be a helper for Adam. This does not by any means indicate a inferiority, but a helper who was Adam's equal. She differed in ways that would complement Adam.
- The conflict: A dire consequence of the Fall is the conflict it has introduced into the relationships of husbands and wives. In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." This desire is to interfere with or distort the role of her husband. The roles God gave to the husband and wife have been distorted through the Fall. Eve would now rebel against the God-given authority of her husband and he would abuse the authority to rule poorly, forcefully and even harshly.
- The restoration: When creation is restored through the work of Christ we do not find an undoing of the marriage order. Were submission a consequence of the Fall we would expect Christ to "make all things new" in this manner. Instead we find that Christ provides power to overcome the sinful impulses of a wife against her husband and the husband's response of ruling harshly over her. But Christ does not remove the order of a husband being in authority over his wife.
- The mystery: When the Apostle Paul wrote of a "mystery" he was describing something that was understood only faintly in the Old Testament but became clear in the New. In Ephesians 5:31-32 Paul shows that the ultimate purpose in marriage is to mirror the relationship between Christ and the church. "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." Dr. Grudem says, "Although Adam and Eve did not know it, their relationship represented the relationship between Christ and the church. They were created to represent that relationship, and that is what all marriages are supposed to do. In that relationship, Adam represents Christ and Eve represents the church..."
- The parallel with the Trinity: The triune nature of God provides the perfect example of submission. "The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflects the equality, differences and unity of the Trinity." We are blessed and honored to be able to represent that relationship in our marriages.
The ultimate reason a wife is to submit her husband may not have been clear to Adam and Eve. It was not clear to God's people until after the writing of the New Testament. The ultimate reason a wife is to submit to her husband is that the marriage relationship is to mirror that of Christ and His church. Just as Christ is head of the church and we submit to Him, in the same way man is the head of the family and the wife should submit to Him. A husband is to lead in the same was as Christ: lovingly, tenderly and always seeking the greatest good for his wife. A wife is to mirror her relationship with Christ in her relationship with her husband. She is to trust him, be loyal to him and help him. This can only be done in a relationship of humble, loving, godly submission.
When men lovingly lead their wives and when women respond in joyful submission, we see a beautiful echo of the relationship of the Father to the Son and we model the love of the Son for His bride. Submission may be unpopular, it may be a difficult word to say, but it is a concept that existed in a perfect world and is one that will endure for eternity.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (27)
Very well written Tim. Nice Post!
Steve
Hi Tim,
Well written post on a difficult subject.
The council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood also has some good materials (including stff from Grudem and Piper).
Here is the link:http://www.cbmw.org/
I agree that the Trinity provides an analogy for the man-woman relationship. Egalitarians also agree to this. Where complementarians and egalitarians differ is on the doctrine of the Trinity. I recently analyzed Kevin Giles's The Trinity and Subordinationism, where he argues that the Son is in no sense eternally subordinate to the Father. 1 Cor 15:28 seems to teach otherwise. I'm writing my dissertation on this subject and the implications it has for the complementarian-egalitarian debate. It's a fascinating subject.
I am always glad to see this misunderstood subject discussed when done with such scriptural clarity. Thank you for an excellent post.
I am blessed to be the wife of a man who loves me "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it". My life as his helper has been full and satisfying. Funny, we both see ourselves as Charlton Heston in a scene from Ben-Hur. One of our favorite lines in the movie is at the point Judah Ben-Hur is serving on the Roman galley and is told "we keep you alive to serve this ship...row well and live..." We both labor for the benefit of our family.
'nuf said.
Marilyn
When true submission meets true biblical leadership it really is a beautiful God-honoring thing. It is painful for me to a see a husband not leading his wife or to see a wife not submitting to her husband. But what a beautiful thing it is to see God's people fulfilling the roles He has given them.
Please forgive my double-intrusion, I just want to briefly clarify that the Ben-Hur reference is always used in humor at our house. Neither of us feels that we are slaves against our will, it is simply a picture of our collective devotion to our family unit in larger service to our Lord!
Which is no small thing considering that when we first married my husband was not a believer.
Marilyn
Tim -- great topic. I don't mean to steal your thunder, but I do want to point your readers to an article we published on Boundless recently on this very topic: Question Authority, by Thabiti Anyabwile.
We'll be publishing an article specifically on pastoral authority this Thursday on Boundless.
Keep up the thoughtful discussions of difficult topics, Tim!
I just wanted to add the voice of another wife saying thank you! It's always refreshing to hear submission talked about from a Biblical standpoint. I'm not submissive to my husband because of some sort of cosmic punishment; I'm submissive because being inside God's design for marriage is freeing!
In understanding this passage, I have two questions. Firstly, does the wife have no obligation to love (agape) the husband? The NT is full of references for us to love one another, so isn't she as much under obligation to love her husband as he is to love her? Secondly, does the man have no obligation to submit to the wife? The previous verse says we are to submit to one another. Does this not cover the male/female relationship?
It seems clear to me that the obligations to love and to submit resides on both parties, and the examples cited were where each spouse in those patriarchal times might have more problems. The concept of the husband having agape love instead of simply a contractual arrangement so that children were produced was revolutionary. While wifely submittal was expected, it was very likely being resisted by Christian women because of the freedom they had to prophecy in the church and the high regard that Jesus showed them.
Something that has always bothered me about Christian egalitarianism, and the biblical arguments that support it, is that no one (to my knowledge) thought of them until after feminism came along in the 19th century. For almost 1,800 years, no saint, nun, church father, or church mother,questioned the headship of the husband. As feminism progressed and grew in society, suddenly biblical interpreters "realize" fresh insights and arguments that re-evaluate texts dealing with roles of men and women. Does anyone else find that to be curious? What can such coincidently "new but orthodox" interpretations be but worldly capitulation and exegetical dishonesty?
As Christians we must strip away the fetters that bind a pure and scripturally based obedience to Christ. Even though society now sees anything less than total authoritative equality between husbands and wives as pathetic barbarism, we must see that the societal norm is itself a wholly worldly concept. This concept is hostile to the beautiful, ancient, and timeless Christian relationship between a husband and wife.
Given the points you raise as evidence of a pre-fall hierarchy, can I suggest you take a look at this thesis on Genesis 1-3 by Martin Shields (link with short review): http://unrelatedramblings.blogspot.com/2007/08/martin-shields-man-woman-in-genesis-1-3.html
Note that he's not (I don't think) an 'egalitarian', but he examines Genesis 1-3 thorougly and rejects the common reading of hierarchy.
I found point 4 to be most interesting because of the current move towards doing away with the term "mankind" and replacing it with "humankind" in areas of evangelicalism. I have been uncomfortable with this - but this point gives a biblical reason for retaining the use of "mankind" as one that preserves this concept of created order.
Great post Tim. I have not thought about this aspect before and it sure builds my faith. I would like to copy this bit and add it to my bookmark of favorite yet unpopular truths.
Last week I listened to a seminar by Tim Keller and in it he and his wife covered some of this. One of the points his wife made about the dynamic of the husband-wife relationship and the church-Jesus relationship really made a whole lot of sense.
Without typing 5 paragraphs, basically wife = HELPER, same Greek word as God is our HELPER. So our wives are not our assistants, not our servants, but a helper who is there for strength and who in their submission fulfills a calling of such great and honorable purpose.
My wife is awesome about submission and has done her homework and study. Within our church she has been met with such bitterness and disdain from other women who think that she is way off with submission, yet you look at the families of those women and they are not doing very well. In most cases the woman also runs the home and things are not as good as they could be. Thankfully she has found more and more women that follow the biblical model and has made some great friends. The world would tell you a wife who submits is an unhappy wife, but look at our family, look at the families in our circle of friends, happiness and a marked presence of peace.
Go figure, the Bible is right!
"The triune nature of God provides the perfect example of submission. “The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflects the equality, differences and unity of the Trinity.” We are blessed and honored to be able to represent that relationship in our marriages."
Can the members of the Trinity plan or conceive of ideas that are oppositional to each other? Can a husband and wife? How is the relationship of the members of the Trinity, who are in perfect agreement from the conception of thought onwards, exemplary of a husband and wife, who are humanly incapable of doing so?
Can you understand that the concept of "submission" is entirely different between the members of the Trinity, who are in perfect agreement with each other, than between a husband and wife, who cannot be?
Submission occurs in two separate beings in which an independently thinking individual subordinates his or her will to another.
Other than during the incarnation, this is not the circumstance under which the Trinity functions.
The emphasis by complementarians on the doctrine of the perpetual submission of the Son in the Trinity is both odd and suspiciously convenient.
Evangelicals have no reason to believe in the perpetual submission of Christ, or to emphasize it even if they do. It is a moot point, because the members of the Trinity are all God and work in perfect harmony. Who cares about submission, where there is total agreement?
Only the complementarians care, because the Trinity is being used as ram to batter home their theology of women. Which is strange, and shows an unduly high regard for the concept of submissive females and an unduly low regard for the Trinity.
We have been preaching from Genesis 1-3 at our church, and ch 3 in particular the past month or more. There is so much in these chapters, and in each verse. One thing I hadn't fully recognized before is that once the man and woman disobey, God comes after the man specifically (esp 3:9,17, also 24). Far from being a theological abstraction, this is embedded in the narrative of God's dealings with man(kind). Lines up exactly with how the passage is treated in the NT.
Interesting that to post this comment I have to click on the word "submit." Subtle...
Tim, I'm surprised you used the word "helper" from Gen 2:18 to support your argument. It's commonly known (at least I thought it was) that this word is used of God's relationship to Israel in the OT fairly frequently (I don't have the numbers in front of me, sorry). That would seem to make your point a more difficult one to accept: the word has nothing to do with subordination at all. Do you have a counter-argument for this that I'm not aware of? Thanks for your time.
I don't have time for a point by point rebuttal of Tim's argument but the exegesis is weak. The essence of Genesis 2 is the God created unity of marriage not authority and submission. Tim, you have to admit there are no verses in all of Scripture that command men to lead women or women to obey men.There is no divinely ordained social order between men and women. Patriarchy was a construct of ancient cultures not God. Uncontested authority is the desire of every sinner's heart. Paul and Peter's words in the NT are accomodation not prescription. Male leadership does not please God. He has made plain what pleases him - mercy, justice, faith, humility, generosity.... These things transcend time, culture and gender. They are the real face of God.
"Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve. While feminists have made much of the term “helper,” the fact remains that in any given situation, the person doing the helping necessarily places himself in a subordinate role to the person needing help."
Oh, dear. We have not thought this through, have we?
When a lifeguard rescues you from a riptide, that lifeguard is helping you. Is the lifeguard subordinate to you? No. The lifeguard is in a position of greater knowledge and skill, one assumes, than you are. You are a splashing fool who wandered into the riptide. The lifeguard is a powerful swimmer, familiar with the mysterious ways of the mighty ocean. The lifeguard will knock you unconcious if you resist commands.
When a librarian at a library helps you find a book, is the librarian subordinate to you? No. The librarian uses his/her professional capability in order to help you find resources. She will take your frightened hand and lead you to the resource that has heretofore eluded you. You follow and learn, because you're clueless and she isn't.
Many professions involve highly trained, skilled and capable individuals helping the less capable or those in trouble. I am sorry that you misperceive this as an act of subordination, when it is, in fact, a display of capability.
Perhaps you believe that a helper subordinates his own desires to the one helped. In fact, many helpers help because that IS their desire. God helps us. Is He making Himself our subordinate?
Woman was created to assist an inadaquate individual, the man. This is a testament to her capability and a means by which she reflects the character of God. Pete Marino couldn't crack the case, so God created Kay Scarpetta.
The only confusing thing is how you came up with the idea of subordination from this.
I read Calvin's section on Christ and the Trinity last night.He never affirms the eternal subordination of the Son and seems to specifically deny it."That is, to him was lordship committed by the Father, until such time as we should see his divine majesty face to face. Then he returns the lordship to his Father so that - far from diminishing his own majesty - it may shine all the more brightly. Then, also, God shall cease to be the Head of Christ, for Christ's own deity will shine of itself, although as yet it is covered by a veil." Institutes 2.14.3Has anyone other than Grudem and his fellow subordationists promoted this idea? From my admittedly meager survey(Augustine, Calvin, Packer) it does not appear to be the historical view of the church.As to 1Cor 15:28, "the Son puts all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all" -God, the Triune God, Father, Son and Spirit not the Father alone. This is more complicated but more true to Triune unity.
Tim, thanks for the post. Good food for thought.-Dolan (comment 9) - As you say, Ephesians 5:21 calls for us as Christians to submit to one another, and there are many calls to love one another. I believe Ephesians 5:22-33 enhances these instructions by providing further details regarding love and submission within marriage. -Suzanne (comment 17) - You said "Tim, you have to admit there are no verses in all of Scripture that command men to lead women or women to obey men". Tim did not use the word "obey" in his post. If you meant to say "submit to" instead of "obey", I would then refer you to Ephesians 5:22-24.
You also indicate that "Paul and Peter’s words in the NT are accommodation not prescription" and as evidence state God is pleased by "mercy, justice, faith, humility, generosity.... ". To be honest, that generated more questions for me than it answered. Perhaps I just need to mull it over more.
I have to ask for clarification of #5, "the primary accountability."
Was Adam held more responsible for the Fall by God because he was the older one, who directly received God's instructions, or because he was male?
And did Satan approach Eve because she was female, or because God had not spoken directly with her, and she was younger? If your position is that no distinction should be made among these arguments (that they are, indeed, the same argument), please explain.
Troy
Suzanne was intentionally saying "obey." Becuase obedience is different than the submission of Ephesians 5.21-22
To refer a person to Ephesians 5.22-24 fails for a few reasons:
1) You need to start at verse 18 (that's where the sentence begins) and the word you're talking about only occurs in verse 21.2) There is no linguistic / semantic evidence that the Greek word translated submit necessitates hierarchy (in spite of what Grudem might think) This concept fails when one examines such passages as 2 Macc 13.23:
”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”
And 1 Clement 38.1:“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”
This isn't hierarchy submission, its a submission based not on roles in society but necessite, which is actually a much more egalitarian concept of submission.
3) The Greek word also technically does not mean submit. Check the OED or Merriam Webster's Thesaurus, in normal English usage (i.e. the Christianese that we've made it is not normal usage) "submit" implies force. And the concpet of force has no place in hypotassomai.
1. The order of creation is fish, birds, animals, man, woman. Quotes in the NT do not always reflect the semantic content of the OT. See Eph. 4:8.
2. Adam may represent the human race. No one submits to Adam.
3. Hagar names God in Gen. 16. This involves recognizing the qualities of the person.
4. The human race was called Adam which normally means "human". In Gen 5:2 the word "Man" was not used until 1952. Grudem did not check this point when he said that it was "man" until the 1980's. It was not.
5. Sapphira was accountable for her own sin.
6. "the fact remains that in any given situation, the person doing the helping necessarily places himself in a subordinate role to the person needing help."
In fact, the person who assists in the scriptures is the one who is a superior position. That is why it is used of God. That is why the King James said that Phoebe was a succourer of many. To succour means to assist someone in danger out of ones own resources, or from ones own position.
7. "This desire is to interfere with or distort the role of her husband." The scripture does not say that.
8. There is exactly one time only in the NT when one person is given authority over another. It is completely mutual and reciprocal. This is in 1 Cor. 7. There is no other mention of authority of husband over wife. It does not exist.
9. It is extremely dangerous to equate sinful men with Christ. Women are still abused at the same rate in Christian homes as anywhere else.
10. This goes far beyond what the scriptures say. Adam may be the head of the human race, in that he is the representative progenitor. God is the representative progenitor of Christ and Christ of man.
Because all men are sinful we no longer bind people to submission. Because popes are sinful, men no longer submit to the one visible church on earth, they have rejected the scriptural teaching of the "one body". Because kings are sinful, men have disassembled absolute monarchies in favour of democracy. Because masters are sinful, we have abolished slavery. Because husbands are sinful women should be freed from subordination to sinful men.
Nonreciprocal submission is rightly described by Peter as suffering. Women are not happy at the thought that submission was the main principle for relating to man in the garden. Men delight in the idea of having someone submit to them. This is their idea of the garden - this is not God's.
Christ teaches that you should love your next one as yourself. There is no greater law than this. Why deny the law of Christ?
I wrote,
"Men delight in the idea of having someone submit to them. This is their idea of the garden - "
I apologize. I intended to address only those who do believe that the state of woman in the garden was submission.
This was an interesting read.
And many of the comments were thought provoking. I came here to read this because the CBMW blog doesn't allow comments.
I find it curious that so much "ink" is given over to this concept of submission. There are so many analogies that I'm just going to go with the bottom line:
If the church had spend as much time in the beginning teaching men what it really means to love their wives as Christ loved the church, rather than trying now to keep women "submitted," there would be no problem with submission.
The word "submission" never enters the discussion at my home, yet I gladly and happily give it to my husband because it's the only way I can assure that the whole family doesn't revolve around me. If it were up to my husband, that's how it would be. I have to actively prefer him. I have to work at getting him to make a decision over seeking my advice.
There is no doubt that God the Father is a worthy head to submit to. If men in Evangelical America spent half as much time emulating the Father, they wouldn't need to spend so much time trying to keep their women in line.
Tim, we published an article on the issue of submission to pastoral authority -- "Obey Your Pastor?" -- this morning. It's kind of a follow-up on an earlier Boundless article, "Question Authority" I figured you and your readers might find it an interesting read....
Ted SlaterEditor, Boundless.org
Tim, I linked to your post at the Complegalitarian blog.