Submission is not necessarily to a person in authority
Wayne Grudem, among others, has made the statement that submission is always to a person in authority. Furthermore, he doesn’t believe submission can be mutual or reciprocal despite what it says in Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5 NKJV. Grudem even refers to mutual submission as a myth. I’ve written about his thoughts on mutual submission before, here, and mentioned most of the following information in a footnote, but I thought this topic needed to be highlighted in its own blog post.
The purpose of this post is simple: to use ancient texts that contain hypotassō to show that submission is 1. not necessarily to a person in authority and 2. that it can be mutual and beneficial.
In this article, I quote four prominent early Christian authors who speak positively about mutual submission among Jesus-followers. But I begin with two examples from early Jewish texts that show submission isn’t always to a person in authority. The following texts use the Greek word hypotassō (“submit”), the same word in Greek texts of Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5 NKJV.
Submission in Early Jewish Texts
Submission (Deference) in the Letter of Aristeas
In this letter, which is a work of propaganda written in Greek roughly around 200 BCE, the king (Ptolemy II) asks questions to his Jewish dinner guests, including how he could receive acceptance, or favour, when travelling abroad. The king is given this advice:
By being fair to all men and by appearing to be lowly rather than superior to those amongst whom he was travelling. For it is a recognized principle that God by His very nature accepts the humble. And the human race loves those who are willing to be submissive (hypotassō) to them. The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates 257. (Greek: Attalus.org)
Being fair, appearing lowly, and being willing to be submissive are seen as virtues that will invite acceptance, but there is no hint that the king should give up his royal authority or that he is submitting to people with a higher level of authority. Rather, submitting will foster good relations.
Submission (Yielding) in 2 Maccabees
Second Maccabees is a Jewish work originally written in Greek in around 150–120 BCE. It recounts the story of the Jewish revolt against the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It also recounts the Jewish conflict with his son.
In 2 Maccabees 13, the Jews are fighting back against the powerful forces of Antiochus V Eupator. During the conflict, however, Antiochus hears that Philip, one of his generals, has revolted against him and intends to seize and take control of Antioch, the capital.
Antiochus, or rather his regent, knows he needs to act quickly. He needs to stop fighting with the Jews and go to Antioch to quell the revolt. So he,
… called in the Jews, yielded (hypotassō) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place (2 Macc. 13:23b NRSV).
This was a strategic move, and while it may have involved a degree of humiliation, Antiochus was not submitting to a higher authority. The submitting was done to mend relationships and placate the Jews. The NRSV translates hypotassō as “yielded” in 2 Maccabees 13:23. This act of yielding, or submission, was not mutual, but in several early Christian texts, the submission described is not to a person in authority and is mutual.
Mutual Submission in the Apostolic Fathers
Mutual Submission is mentioned in three letters contained in a collection of early Christian works known as the Apostolic Fathers. These letters were written to certain congregations in the late first to mid-second centuries.
Mutual Submission in First Clement
First Clement is a letter written from Rome to the Corinthians at the end of the first century. At the beginning of chapter 2, the Romans remind the Corinthians,
Moreover, you were all humble and free from arrogance, submitting rather than demanding submission, more glad to give than to receive … (1 Clem. 2:1, Michael Holmes’s translation).
In chapter 37, the author tells the Corinthians to serve as soldiers. Using the analogy of soldiering, he acknowledges differences in rank and function, but also says there is an advantage when there is a “blending” (sugkrasis) among, or between, the ranks.
He then uses the imagery of interdependence and mutuality within the body borrowed from Paul (1 Cor. 12), and the Corinthians are urged to submit to their neighbour.
Let us take the body as an example. The head without the feet is nothing, likewise, the feet without the head are nothing. Even the smallest parts of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body, yet all the members coalesce harmoniously and unite in mutual subjection, so that the whole body may be saved.
So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each of us be mutually subject to our neighbour, in proportion to each one’s spiritual gift. (1 Clem. 37:5–38:1, Holmes’s transl.).
In these quotations, the author links submission with humility, unity, spiritual giftedness, and even salvation, but harmonious relationships appear to be the primary goal. I recommend reading 1 Clement 37–38 in context.
Mutual Submission in Ignatius’s Letter to the Magnesians
In around 110, Ignatius wrote a letter to the church at Magnesia. In one statement, he includes an instruction for submission to someone with authority, the bishop, as well as an instruction for mutual submission:
Submit to the bishop and to one another (Ign. Magn. 13:2).
The second phrase uses similar language to what Paul used in Ephesians 5:21: the Greek word meaning “to one another” (allēlois) in Magnesians 13:2 is identical to the word in Ephesians 5:21.
Ignatius goes on to give examples of submission and its aim.
… as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there may be unity, both physical and spiritual (Ign. Magn. 13:2, Holmes’s transl.).
We can model our submission as to a person with a higher level of authority or social status (cf. Eph. 5:22), and it can still be mutual and reciprocated. The aim of Christian submission isn’t subordination but unity.
Mutual Submission in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians
Later in the first half of the second century, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians and simply advised them, “All of you be submissive to one another …” (Pol. Phil. 10:2)
The author of 1 Clement (traditionally thought to be Clement the bishop of Rome), Ignatius (bishop of the church at Antioch) and Polycarp (bishop of the church at Smyrna) did not regard mutual submission as a myth. Instead, like Paul and Peter, they saw mutual submission as being vital for harmony and unity in the church (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5 NKJV).
Chrysostom on Mutual Service and Submission
John Chrysostom (archbishop of Constantinople between the years 398 and 405) was a native speaker of Greek. He understood Ephesians 5:21 to be about mutual, reciprocated submission and service, and he used the master-slave relationship to explain it.
Let there be an interchange of service and submission. For then there will be no such thing as slavish service. Let not one sit down in the rank of a freeman, and the other in the rank of a slave; rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another;—far better to be a slave in this way than free in any other. Homily 19 on Ephesians (Source: New Advent)
Chrysostom believed mutual service and submission would result in tasks being shared equitably, rather than some working harder than others. He wanted Christian masters and slaves to serve one another.
Unlike what some claim, submission is not necessarily to a person in authority. Moreover, three (or four) highly respected bishops of the Early Church recognised that mutual submission is beneficial for relationships within the church.
The Greek verb hypotassō can mean to be subordinate or be subject, but it need not have a harsh sense or a strong force especially among Christians where relationships are to be founded on love (John 13:34–35). Submission between Christians, including submission between Christian husbands and wives, should be characterised by humility, deference, cooperation, loyalty, and of course love.
Submissiveness, like also the virtues of humility and meekness, should be a normal attitude or disposition for all followers of Jesus.
… all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” 1 Peter 5:5b NKJV
All biblical instructions should be understood and implemented with kindness and commonsense. Generally speaking, submitting to foolish whims or to bullying is not kind, helpful, or healthy to either party.
 Antiochus V Eupator was ruler of the Greek Seleucid Empire from late 164 to 161 BCE. He was the son and successor of the dreaded Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Antiochus V was only a boy when he reigned. The real ruler, and the real negotiator with the Jews, was his regent Lysias. More info on Wikipedia, here.
 The quotations from 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp’s letter that are marked as being translated by Michael Holmes are taken from The Apostolic Fathers, The Greek Texts and English Translations (3rd edition) edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).
 Polycarp’s letter was originally written in Greek, but this part of his letter only survives in Latin. However, he appears to have copied Paul’s wording, so we may assume that Polycarp originally used the word hypotassō. Ephesians 5:21 in the Vulgate and in Polycarp’s letter (10:2) contain the Latin words subiecti invicem.
 The Christian texts cited are about mutual submission within Christian communities, in congregations, not in marriage. In First Clement and in Chrysostom’s sermons there are other passages about wifely submission (e.g., 1 Clem. 1:3b). These authors were not egalitarians or mutualists. And Ignatius is famous for advocating three-tiered hierarchical male leadership in churches. Nevertheless, I maintain that mutual submission is beneficial in the church and in marriage. Neither Jesus, Paul, or Peter ever tell husbands to lead or have unilateral authority over their wives. No New Testament person does.
© Margaret Mowczko 2021
All Rights Reserved
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Postscript: April 15, 2023
Bill Mounce on Submission in 1 Timothy 2:11
Bill Mounce is a well-known professor of New Testament Greek who has written a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (which includes 1 Timothy). Dr Mounce recently admitted that he is rethinking the idea of submission in 1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman should learn in quietness, in all submissiveness.”
He suggests that maybe Paul isn’t saying she needs to be submissive to a person, such as church elders, but that what is required is a submissive character.
A disposition of humility, deference, and quietness (i.e. a submissive character) is how I understand the use of hypotassō (“submit”) in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and also in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Furthermore, the word can have the sense of controlling, or regulating, one’s speech or behaviour, as is apparent in 1 Corinthians 14:32.
1 Timothy 2:11–12 is written as an inclusion with the phrase “in quietness” occurring at the beginning and end. (These two verses belong together.) The phrase “in all submissiveness” is parallel to the first “in quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and expands on the idea.
In 1 Corinthians 14:26–40, Paul addresses the rowdy speech of some Corinthians. He silences three groups of people while encouraging orderly and edifying speech. In this context, Paul uses hypotassō twice.
Quietness (hēsuchia) was a virtue in the ancient world for men and for women, and is mentioned in several early Christian and Jewish texts. (See postscripts here.) Just as quietness is a character trait, I suggest hypotassō is used in these verses as a character trait or disposition rather than as a behaviour directed to someone.
You can read Dr Mounce’s blog post “Submissive to Whom? (1 Tim 2:11)” on his website here.
Postscript: June 29, 2021
Richard Foster on Submission as “Fitting those who follow the crucified Lord”
In his classic book, Celebration of Discipline (first published in 1978), author Richard Foster wrote about “The Discipline of Submission.” With Paul’s household codes in Ephesians 5–6 and Colossians 3 in mind, he wrote,
The discipline of submission has been terribly misconstrued and abused from failure to see the wider context. Submission is an ethical theme that runs the gamut of the New Testament. It is a posture obligatory upon all Christians: men, as well as women, fathers as well as children, masters as well as slaves. We are commanded to live a life of submission because Jesus lived a life of submission, not because we are in a particular place or station in life. Self denial is a posture fitting those who follow the crucified Lord.
Kephalē (“Head”) and Mutual Submission in First Clement
Mutual Submission is not a Myth
Ephesians 5:22–33 in a Nutshell
Submission and Respect from Wives (1 Peter 3:1–6)
Submission and Respect from Husbands (1 Peter 3:7–8)
Mutual Submission in Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5
My articles on submission are here.
My articles on meekness are here.
More articles that refer to 1 Clement are here.
9 thoughts on “Mutual Submission in Early Christian Texts”
I appreciate the evidence in the early church fathers. Excellent.
Have you written or discussed the effect that male/authority and female/submission have had in the homes of Christians? Do you think most Christians are aware of how much abuse has taken place based on the conventional (unbiblical) interpretations of those words?
Mary…when doing a wedding service I refer to ‘submission’ of one to the other
Requiring humility and respect of the ‘other’s’ feelings without imposing ‘authority’ (either you agree with me or are wrong)
Mutual submission is not always 50-50 – sometimes one person needs more support/encouragement/understanding than the other and so AT TIMES a good relationship doesn’t make a big deal out of something just to be ‘right’!
When the dishwasher person is tired, frustrated, etc. the ‘other’ recognizes that while s/he would rather not do the dishes they will take over.
Hi Dan, I leave discussions on abuse (mostly) to others. I stick more with the biblical texts and let other experienced people discuss the practical.
I can’t speak about other places on the globe, but at the moment there are big discussions in Sydney about the link between “male headship” and abuse in Christian marriages. This is thanks to an investigation and report about family violence done by the Anglican Church in Australia, and thanks to this article by the wonderful Julia Baird.
And starting next Wednesday, July 7, a few of us will be discussing this publicly via zoom. This will be announced on the Fixing Her Eyes Facebook Page.
My guess is that many Christians are unaware of how widespread abuse is in Christian marriages and how horrific it can be. From listening to the accounts of many women, myself, “male headship” plays a huge part in abuse. At the very least, “male headship” is the excuse (or, permission) abusers give themselves, and it is the reason many women endure it; they think it is biblical. :'(
Thank you, Marg. It saddens me that the Bible is used to promote such godless practices by “christian” men.
Are you familiar with a little book, “What Paul Really Said About Women: The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love.” by John Bristow.? He explains that headship in 1 Corinthians 11 (and elsewhere) is “leadership by example.” He contrasts “kephale” with “arche” and says that the latter is comparable to a general in the army, and that “kephale” is like the scout who goes out ahead of the army to see if the way is safe. I recommend the book highly.
Yes, I have that book on my shelves and enjoyed it. I’ve even quoted it on my website, here.
I’m not sure about that general-scout analogy, though. And kephalē and archē can sometimes be almost synonymous as in 1 Colossians 1:18 where both words have the sense of beginning or being first:
[The Son] is the head (kephalē) of the church body of which he is the beginning (archē), the firstborn of the dead, so that he himself may be first in everything.
Archē can also mean leader, as in a person in authority. However, kephalē in and of itself doesn’t mean leader or person in authority in ancient works originally written in Greek before the second century CE and often afterwards also. Kephalē, however, can refer to a person in authority.
I had a look at pp.36-37 and agree with most of what Bristow says. I can’t see that he actually uses the word “scout.” It’s a shame that he doesn’t cite his source.
In The Life of Pelopidas, Plutarch uses the word kephalē for General Pelopidas, but he uses it in a head-body metaphor.
The purpose of the metaphor is to show that General Pelopidas is not “one man” by himself. Rather, his hands, his feet, and chest, that is, his light-armed troops, his cavalry, and his men at arms, are all part of the “one man” and all will perish as one man, if and when the general makes a bad move. The general is in a prominent, superior position (kephalē), and he is also the leader with authority. Kephalē is used by Plutarch to refer to oneness here, with the General being in the prominent position in relation to the body.
Because kephalē often has the metaphorical senses of prominence, or of being first, or of having a higher social status or rank, it is sometimes used of people with authority–Paul uses it of God and Jesus and (first-century) husbands–but the word itself doesn’t mean a person with authority. This is the point I want to make in an upcoming interview, and it can be tricky to explain.
(Reputations is the overall concern in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and unity is the sense of the head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5:22-33, not authority.)
As these things are currently on my mind, my comment to you got longer than I intended.
Thank you Marg for this and all the work you are doing… you have opened my eyes to review Paul’s discourse on the body. Thanks again
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
…….by love serve one another…. a husband and wife are to serve each other out of love, which implies , in my opinion , that we put our spouses needs ahead of ours – we submit to the needs of others, and this is what is meant to serve out of love. The love of Christ that we are suppose to show one another is the great equalizer in any christian relationship and marriage. A husband or wife who wants to control and dominate thieir spouse, and not share in the decision making, is lusting after power of authority over another human being. Christ Jesus submitted to the need of mankind – mankind needed a savior to be redeemed from sin and out of love Jesus gave his life to become redeemer for all.
That makes more sense because christ would have all be like him how can we be as he is and battle for authority in any setting. I’ve been praying on the what some understand eph 5 to be regarding ranking, authority and headship is missing one thing, the truth that all this talk of submission to God not man. If we don’t submit everything to God, we leave a place for mankind to lead mankind to themselves. The word of God is meant to edify and lead us to God the most trusted one, the great I am. Jesus showed how important mankind’s rankings are and used it to wash our feet, said serve one another. So glad he did because what we deem valuable he deemed invaluable in comparison to his attributes. To those who choose to live how they please God will lead them how they will that is between them and the Jesus. I encourage them to look at the whole bible. See it in parts and it’s whole, the whole point to everything is to bring each to God, not teach us how to be good followers of man.