The Comp Egal Debate: A biblical definition of a wife’s submission to her husband

The point is often made that Ephesians 5:24 enables abusers:

[W]ives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. (NAB)[1]

It does enable abusers - if the verse is not interpreted in a theologically responsible manner. In a forthcoming book, Jim and Sarah Sumner place biblical limits on a wife’s submission to her husband, with hard-hitting examples:

The wife’s submission to her husband is guided by her submission to the Lord. So if the husband tries to persuade his wife to sin, it is better for her not to submit. Countless examples illustrate the point. If the husband is physically abusive, the wife is not to submit. If he tells her to get a breast enlargement, she doesn’t have to submit. If he tells her not to hold him accountable because he is held accountable by God, it is better for her not to submit. If he asks her to lie, she should not submit. Think of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. God struck Sapphira dead. Sapphira was not excused from punishment as if she were a mere victim of her husband’s sinful leadership. [p. 61]

According to Jim and Sarah Sumner, the clearest blueprint for marriage found in the Bible is Ephesians 5:22-33 (p. 65). But they are careful to interpret that blueprint in the light of all of scripture. That makes all the difference.

The Sumners’ forthcoming book is a breath of fresh air in a highly polarized debate. I recommend it to Christians looking for a way to retain the gender-differentiated language of Ephesians 5 – e.g., love/submit – within biblically defensible limits.

Bibliography

Jim and Sarah Sumner, Just How Married Do You Want to Be? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, forthcoming 2008) The key chapters are entitled “Two Popular Models of Marriage” (Chapter 2), “A Deeper Understanding of Headship” (Chapter 3), and “A Biblical Model of Marriage” (Chapter 4).

Here is a complete list of posts in this series:

• What is the Debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians really about?
• The Comp Egal Debate: Honesty is Such a Lonely Word
• The Comp Egal Debate: What does it mean that “the husband is the head of the wife”?
• The Comp Egal Debate: A Distorted View of Headship
• The Comp Egal Debate: A biblical definition of a wife’s submission to her husband
• The Comp Egal Debate: A “purely” historical take on Ephesians 5:22-33
• Sarah Sumner on the Need for Integrity in the Comp Egal Debate

---

[1] KJV, NASB, NRSV, REB, and NJB translate ‘subject to in everything,’ and (T)NIV and NLT translate ‘submit in everything,’ but these are not substantial differences.

Comments

[Andrew Compton]

A couple of things strike me about how a woman's submission is to be nuanced.

First is something you mentioned in the post, namely that a woman should not (in fact, I'd say *must* not) submit if her husband is calling her to engage in sin.

Second, I'd even go a step further and state that a wife must not allow her husband to sin against her. I know women who were abused whose husbands kept playing the "submit" card, all the while they were sinning against their wives sexually, emotionally, physically, etc. A women must not be an enabler and allow her husband to continue in his sinful patterns; especially when they are at her expense. (Of course this is easier said than done when a woman is caught up in the fear and uncertainty of an abusive relationship. My friends who were abused speak of simply trying to survive.)

Third, something that ties in especially with your example of a husband instructing his wife to get a breast enlargement surgery. A wife must not let her husband violate her Christian liberty (I'm thinking in terms of Romans 14 here). We could probably debate whether getting a breast enlargement is, in and of itself, sin (i.e., if a woman wanted this, I'm not sure whether I could in good conscience discourage her in *every* circumstance), but if a husband was *demanding* this of his wife, seeing as how forcing her to do so would violate her Christian liberty (after all, the Bible never commands her to get such a surgery), she need not submit to such a request.

While we can get into gray areas in this regard (e.g., what if a husband asks his wife to use a computer banking program rather than using the old fashioned, hand written way of balancing the check book) and while a household may agree to work within certain parameters for the sake of order and decency in the home, women should not be afraid to insist that their Christian liberty be respected - *especially* by their husbands who, after all, should be willing to die for their wives (at least this is how I interpret the phrase "give himself up for" in Eph 5.25). (I've never understood why so many men claim they're willing to die for their wives, but are unwilling to cook dinner or unload the dishwasher for them . . .)

Well, now I'm sort of rambling a bit. Thanks again, John, for an insightful series of posts. Though my own tradition is more complementarian, far too many within my circles haven't done a very careful or charitable job of articulating their positions. Thanks for contributing to my understanding of the discussion.

[JohnFH]

Andrew,

thank you for your wisdom and insight. I think christologically qualified complementarianism has a lot going for it, and you do a fine job of articulating that. I hope you write more on this topic.

[tiro3]

Part of the problem of understanding the Biblical meaning of upotassomai is that it isn't about a wife's RESPONSE to what a husband might ask. That is only a fringe area. The primary meaning of (upotassomai) arranging of oneself under another, is to so arrange one's attitude and actions so as to support the well being of the other, at all times and in everything. This is not dependent upon waiting for a husband to ask or demand something. And one's response to his requests and demands should ALSO remain within the primary meaning of arranging one's attitude and actions to support the husband's well being. Sometimes, husband's ask things that demean themselves, the marriage, and the wife. A wise woman will seek God for a more appropriate response other than unthinking compliance.

[JohnFH]

Tiro,

I'm not at all in disagreement with your conclusions about "unthinking compliance" being the last thing Paul had in mind, but I cannot follow your method of getting there.

The meaning of the verb upotasssomai has to be determined by usage and context. Etymologization isn't particularly helpful. In terms of usage and context, the verb is what one expects in household codes in which one side of a bilateral relationship (wife-husband, child-parent; slave-master) is expected to submit, and the other to exercise authority.

It’s not that hard to grasp this. But it hurts, right? It still hurts me a bit. I grew up in Madison WI, the Berkeley of the Midwest, and I’m still inclined to think that the well-adjusted egalitarian culture I absorbed from the time I was knee-high to a grasshopper is the beautiful truth, period. Full stop. How dare God accommodate his revelation to cultural norms at variance with the ones I grew up with in Madison! Jesus should have been born in Madison or Berkeley, and if that couldn’t be arranged, at least Paul should have. If the weather wasn’t so bad, Vancouver would have made an excellent choice, I’m sure others will point out.

It’s not upotassomai that’s odd in Ephesians 5 (except for us). It’s agapein. That’s what’s new, and sent eyebrows furling.