Catholic Apologetics International
Does St. Paul Teach “Mutual Submission” of Spouses? A Critical Analysis of Mulieris Dignitatem
In the August 28 issue of The Wanderer, editor of Catholic Replies, James J. Drummey, received a question from a reader regarding the biblical passages which state that a woman is to be in submission to her husband. The reader referred to 1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22 and asked: “Please explain how the Catholic Church interprets these statements.” Mr. Drummey then wrote three paragraphs of explanation, all of which made reference to the teaching of John Paul II in the 1988 apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (“The Dignity of Women”).
The first thing that drew my attention to this piece was that the reader asked “how the Catholic Church interprets these statements,” but Mr. Drummey quoted only from John Paul II. Whether intentionally or not, this certainly gives the impression that Mr. Drummey considers only John Paul II’s writings as representative of the Catholic Church on this particular question. Unfortunately, the reader was deprived of the entire tradition of the Church which holds a wealth of knowledge on this very topic. As we will see shortly, perhaps the reason Mr. Drummey didn’t cite anyone else in the Catholic Church is that he knows they all, collectively, teach something quite different about the wife’s submission to her husband than what John Paul II states in Mulieris Dignitatem.
In his opening sentence, Mr. Drummey gives a synopsis of John Paul’s teaching:
Pope John Paul has explained that these passages are to be understood as a mutual submission of both spouses since Eph 5:21 says: ‘Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.’
Notice that the answer contains no word about the meaning or application of the specific command for wives to submit to their husbands. That command is summarily dismissed from the discussion and subsumed under the more general category of “mutual submission,” all without a word of explanation to the reader. Knowing Mr. Drummey as I do, I know he is old enough to realize that the traditional Church would answer the reader’s question quite differently (i.e., it would answer the question by stating that the wife is to submit to her husband). But since Mr. Drummey, along with The Wanderer and many other modern Catholics, has decided to be indiscriminate of any papal word or deed disseminated to them today, he has no qualms overlooking 1900 years of Catholic tradition for one sentence in an apostolic letter that doesn’t even purport to give the definitive or binding teaching on the meaning and application of spousal submission.
The same type of interpretation can be found in other liberal-leaning publications. For example, in a recent issue of Envoy Magazine a woman sent the following question (note the reticence she has in accepting the biblical command):
I recently read an excerpt from a forthcoming book by a Catholic woman in which she used the word “submission” to refer to a woman’s position toward her husband as the head of the family. I think the word submission is inappropriate...the word “submission” has a painful edge to it...
The following answer was given by a Fr. Brian Wilson of the staff of Envoy:
Okay, fine. Now, have you noticed that he [St. Paul] in the same passage that husbands should love their wives? Yes? All right then, do you think that means that wives don’t have to love their husbands? Well, no, don’t be silly; of course not. So then, what makes you think that by the same token husbands shouldn’t be subject to their wives? Love is not a one-way street, and neither is subordination, or “being subject to.” Both the subordination and the love are mutual. (1)
Is “Mutual Submission” a Correct Teaching?
Irrespective of Mr. Drummey’s and Fr. Wilson’s intentions, let’s get right to the heart of the matter. Did St. Paul intend to teach “mutual submission” between spouses in Ephesians 5:21-22 when he told the wife to submit to her husband? The rest of this essay will be devoted to answering that question. Suffice it to say for now, however, that giving the answer “mutual submission” to the question of the wife’s role in the marriage is at best confusing and evasive, and at worst an utter novelty in the annals of Catholic thought and practice. A thorough examination of the patristics, the medievals, other papal encyclicals, and last but not least, Scripture itself, reveals that “mutual submission” was never taught or intended in the tradition of the Catholic Church, either officially or unofficially.
Continuing with his answer, Mr. Drummey provides the reader with a quote from Mulieris Dignitatem which confirms his understanding of the pope’s teaching:
However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual (n. 24).
On the one hand, the above statement recognizes that the Church’s subjection to Christ is mandatory and is not reciprocal. That is to say, the Church is obliged to submit herself to Christ. If she doesn’t submit, Christ will judge her (cf., Apocalypse 2-3). On the other hand, Christ is not obliged to submit Himself to the Church, since He is in the superior position in the relationship. If and when Christ did submit Himself to the Church, it would not be on a mandatory basis, but, as happened, for example, when He washed the apostles’ feet, His submission would be completely voluntary, and thus would not be the same as the Church’s compulsory submission to Christ. It would be for this reason, perhaps, that John Paul stipulates the Church’s submission to Christ is “one-sided.”
For the purposes of our discussion, it is important to note two related facts about John Paul’s above statement in n. 24: (1) his use of the phrase “one-sided,” since it requires the Church’s submission but relieves Christ of the same, shows that he has understood and applied the legal definition of submission; and (2) he has established the premise that Christ’s love for the Church is not a submission to the Church.
We also see in n. 24 that, in light of his understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church, John Paul II deduces that husbands and wives do not have a “one-sided” arrangement. Even though the remaining context of Ephesians 5:23-33 compares the church’s subjection to Christ with the wife’s subjection to her husband, as well as Christ’s love for the Church with the husband’s love for his wife, John Paul II insists that the husband is required to be in subjection to the wife because of Ephesians 5:21's clause “be subject to one another.” In John Paul’s estimation, Ephesians 5:21 has the same legal requirements for husband as Ephesians 5:22 has for the wife, and thus can be placed in opposition to, superior to, or the sole interpreter of Ephesians 5:22. In effect, Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 balance (or cancel) each other out, and thus the submission between spouses is to be understood as “mutual.”
That the above is indeed John Paul’s intention is confirmed by a General Audience address given on August 11, 1982. He writes:
The author [St. Paul], addressing husbands and wives, recommends them to be “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21)....The husband and the wife are in fact “subject to one another,” and are mutually subordinated to one another....Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord Himself, just as the wife is to the husband.
Allow me to point out a few items about John Paul’s analysis which we will discuss in the remainder of this essay. Notice first he asserts Ephesians 5:21 is speaking directly to husbands and wives, and gives no indication he understands the verse as speaking to the Church at large. Second, he says that love makes the husband subject to the wife, and thus posits a connection between love and subjection. Third, he says that the husband’s subjection to the wife is “just as” the wife’s subjection to the husband, thus concluding that there is no distinction between the mutual subjections.
Interestingly enough, in the September 18 issue, The Wanderer published an op ed column by James K. Fitzpatrick which deals precisely with the same issue of wifely submission in Ephesians 5:22 that James Drummey and Fr. Wilson had addressed. Fitzpatrick takes quite a different tack than both of them. Commenting on the passage, Fitzpatrick writes:
...during Mass when the epistle is read...I have heard fellow parishioners at social gatherings joke about the lines, as if they are not to be taken seriously. Over the past decade or so, I have noticed that most priests who deal with this theme in their homilies treat it as an example of a culturally determined concept that should be interpreted in light of the modern understanding of the dignity of women, as if St. Paul’s thoughts were shaped by the same forces that denied women the right to vote. Or they skirt the topic entirely, much as they would his call for slaves to be obedient to their masters, which pop up just a few paragraphs down in this same epistle. The dangers implicit in this reaction should be obvious. Picking and choosing and reinterpreting the Bible based on the cultural biases of our time, is the essence of modernism. Betty Friedan and Cosmopolitan magazine do not deserve a veto over Sacred Scripture. St. Paul deserves to be treated more seriously on this topic. If not, why treat him seriously elsewhere? Or any of the Gospels for that matter. If they become outdated when we decide that they are, everything is up for grabs.(2)
Notice that, unlike Mr. Drummey, Mr. Fitzpatrick does not whittle down the issue into one of the “dignity of women.” He lays it right on the line. To him, those who dismiss St. Paul’s words as “culturally biased” are imbibing the “essence of modernism.” I genuinely appreciate and applaud Mr. Fitzpatrick’s candor and honesty. However, I question whether he or the The Wanderer fully comprehended the profound ramifications of such a position to the neo-catholic position before printing it. For it is precisely the “dignity of women” (the very meaning of “Mulieris Dignitatem”) that serves as the foundation for John Paul II’s teaching that spouses are to be “mutually submissive.” Moreover, as we will see later in this essay, it is John Paul II’s belief that St. Paul’s demand for wives to be submissive to their husbands is a culturally conditioned demand that needs to be reinterpreted for modern man. In the words of Mr. Fitzpatrick, this is the “essence of modernism.” Is he correct?
Scripture, the Fathers and St. Thomas Regarding the Wife’s Submission to Her Husband:
From all the evidence available to us, it appears that John Paul II’s “mutual submission” interpretation is in direct conflict with what the Fathers, the Tradition, and Scripture declare on this issue. These three witnesses are quite clear that the Pauline command for a wife to be in submission to her husband is a separate, legal command for the wife; and is not to be modified or reinterpreted with respect to “mutual submission.” There are over a half-dozen passages in the New Testament that require the wife’s submission, some under pain of discipline if she refuses. Conversely, there is no command in all of Scripture stating that a husband is to be in subjection to his wife, or anything even close to it. The Tradition of the Church has confirmed this fact. Let’s examine the pertinent passages.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.
The first and most obvious question a good Catholic would want to know about this passage is: What was the Church’s traditional understanding? We don’t need to go far to establish it. St. Augustine writes on 1 Cor 11:3: “For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man” (Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16). As it is stated clearly in Ephesians 5:22-33, Augustine uses Christ’s headship over the Church as the model for the husband’s headship over the wife. He makes no reference to “mutual submission” or anything of the sort, either here or in his other writings. In another place he writes:
Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord’” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10).
For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty... (Letters, CCXXXII)
St. Clement of Alexandria expresses the same sentiments regarding 1 Cor 11:3:
The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord’ (Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8).
The Greek exegete, Severian of Gabala writes on 1 Cor 11:3:
Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission. (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260).
St. Thomas Aquinas says the same on 1 Cor 11:3, even using Augustine as further witness to this truth:
For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8).
For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4).
Not only are these witnesses straightforward about the wife’s obligation to submit to her husband, notice again that none of them refer to “mutual submission” (or any similar term) in interpreting the wife’s responsibility to her husband or in the understanding of the spousal relationship in general. Moreover, the Fathers and Aquinas understand “submission” in the legal sense (i.e., the wife is obligated to submit; the husband is not) and apply that sense to the Scriptures they are interpreting. (3)
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
For the record, the phrase “to be subject” is from the Greek word hupotasso, the same word used in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1, 5 in the command for the wife to submit to her husband. Additionally, we notice in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that St. Paul uses “the law” as his precedent and authority. This means the wife’s submission to the husband is not a new teaching being forced upon the churches, but one that has come directly from the precepts of the Old Testament, and which apparently is still in force. Again, this shows the legal undergirding of her obligation to be in submission. In addition, in verse 37, St. Paul adds: “the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Thus St. Paul gives two legal witnesses to his testimony concerning a woman’s obligation to submit to her husband, the same two or three witnesses he requires of himself (cf., 2 Cor. 13:1).
The Church Fathers had no qualms about this either. In fact, so precise was their interpretation that they insisted on prohibiting women from ever speaking in Church. As representative of their teaching, we will cite a relatively early Father, Origen, on 1 Cor 14:34:
First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14]. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16).
1 Timothy 2:10-15
But, as it becomes women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 Adam was first formed; then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
As representative of the Church’s consensus, Aquinas understands this passage in the following way:
The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16 (Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2).
Colossians 3:17-19
All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.
The tradition of the Church has understood this in the same way as the above passages. St. John Chrysostom writes:
Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake. (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304).
Chrysostom adds that there is great harmony if the husband loves his wife and the wife is submissive to the husband.
Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)
Augustine says the same about Col 3:18:
Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’ (On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267).
Theodoret says the same on Col 3:18:
Paul is particularly concerned here with believing women who are married to unbelieving men: thus, their subjection is in service to the Lord, that is, as the Lord commands.” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Colossians PG 82:621A).
Titus 2:4-5
4 That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children. 5 To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands: that the word of God is not blasphemed.
Here the wife is told both to “love” her husband and be “obedient” to him (“obedient” is the Greek hupotasso, which is also translated “be in submission” or “be subject,” as in all the previous passages). The wife is to make sure she does these things so that “the word of God is not blasphemed.”
1 Peter 3:1, 5-6
This passage gives even more graphic language regarding the wife’s requirement to be submissive to her husband, using Sarah as the example par excellence:
In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives...5 For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: 6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.
Representing the consensus of the Fathers on 1 Peter 3:1, Tertullian writes:
Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned. (On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII).
Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church. (Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII).
Last but not least, there is Ephesians 5:22-33
22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:
23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the
church. He is the saviour of his body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives
be to their husbands in all things.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered
himself up for it:
26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word
of life:
27 That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot
or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it,
as also Christ doth the church:
30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave
to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh.
32 This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church.
33 Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife
as himself: And let the wife fear her husband.
Let’s open up the investigation of this passage by asking an obvious question: If by a reading of Ephesians 5:21 it is concluded that spouses are required to submit to one another on an equal basis, then why did St. Paul include the sentence: “Let women be subject to their husbands” in Ephesians 5:22 if that truth was already covered in Eph 5:21's statement “Be subject to one another”? Would it not be superfluous and confusing to specify only one of the submitting parties (in the very next verse), while the other spouse receives no such direct command, here or any other place in Scripture?
Let’s look closer at Ephesians 5:22-33 for the answer. The underlined words show that the wife is told three times to be in subjection to her husband, while the italicized words show that the husband is never told to be in subjection to his wife; rather, he is told three times to love her. Moreover, not only is the wife told to be submissive, but verse 24 adds that it is to be “in all things.”(4) Could the teaching be any more emphatic? An unbiased reading of the text clearly shows that not only is the husband’s submission to the wife absent from the context, but the wife’s submission is accentuated in addition to what was originally stated in Ephesians 5:22! Moreover, St. Paul never confuses love with submission. The two are kept entirely separate. Hence, the weight of the context on this issue is absolutely overwhelming.
To Whom Does Ephesians 5:21 Apply?
As noted above, John Paul II claims that Ephesians 5:21 is the topic sentence for the remainder of the chapter, and thus concludes that it applies directly to husbands and wives. He neither makes any acknowledgment that the verse can apply to all Christians, nor does he posit any distinction between the general submission required in Ephesians 5:21 with the specific submission required in Ephesians 5:22-33.
The Fathers of the Church saw Ephesians 5:21 quite differently. They made the necessary distinction between the context that ends with Ephesians 5:21 (“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”), and the context that begins with Ephesians 5:22 (“Let women be subject to their husbands”).
As representative of their views let’s look, for example, at St. John Chrysostom. Chrysostom ends Homily XIX at Ephesians 5:21, and then begins Homily XX at Ephesians 5:22, thus treating the two contexts separately and showing that verse 21 is a general statement for the whole church, in a context that begins as far back as Ephesians 4:1, a section in which St. Paul does not specifically address the husband/wife relationship; rather, he speaks to all the relationships that Christians have in and out of the Church (e.g., bishop/priest; pastor/parishioner; master/slave, husband/wife). Ephesians 6:1-9 does the same, and thus the command to “be subject to one another” is surrounded on all sides by general instructions for all classes of people.
Theodoret regards the distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:22 in the same way, that is, there is a general law wherein each Christian is to subject himself to the other as a humble servant (Ephesians 5:21), but the legal specifics that go beyond the general admonition are covered in the remaining context (i.e., Ephesians 5:22-6:9):
We must not be submissive to those who command us to act unlawfully. But to those who call us to live with piety, we must be subject to one another. Having laid down this general law of obedience, Paul next advises the Ephesians in detail on their duties to another. (Commentarius in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas, 2:33).
The Greek Grammar
Not only do the Fathers show us a distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22, the Greek grammar reinforces it. The phrase “being subject” in Ephesians 5:21 is from the Greek imperative-present-participle, hupotassomenoi. This is a somewhat unusual form in Greek. Its uniqueness would certainly catch a Greek expert’s eye, especially if he saw four other imperative-present-participles preceding the one in question. He would immediately know that the author (St. Paul) was trying to signal the reader to see that all the verses employing the imperative-present-participle are directly connected. Such is the case in Ephesians 5:19-21. Here are the verses as recorded in the Douay-Rheims:
19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.
The underlined words are the imperative-present-participles. The first is lalountes, appearing in verse 19, which is normally translated as “speaking.” The second is adontes, appearing in verse 19, and translated as “singing.” The third instance is psallontes, also appearing in verse 19, and translated as “making melody”or “psalming.” The fourth instance is eucharistountes, appearing in verse 20, and is translated as “giving thanks.” The fifth instance, of course, is hupotassomenoi, appearing in verse 21, and translated as “being subject.” As the context clearly shows, these five commands are given to all the Christians of the Church, not specifically to husbands and wives. We can conclude from this grammatical arrangement that verse 21 is directly related to verses 19-20, but only remotely related, if at all, to verses 22-33.(5) Interestingly enough, the Greek manuscripts that contain the phrase “be subject”(6) in Ephesians 5:22 (i.e., “wives be subject to your husbands”), reveal that St. Paul breaks his pattern of using the participle. In verse 22 he switches to the non-participle, hupotassasthe, which is an obvious indication that he is now on another topic and direction.
Not only does the grammar of Ephesians 5:19-21 show us the nature of Christian submission, but so do the specific words St. Paul chooses to express his teaching. Let’s look at the verses again:
19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.
The underlined words describe the Christian who is constantly mindful of God and continually seeks to give Him worship. He does so, in part, by creating intimate communication with his fellow Christians (cf., James 5:13-14). He “speaks” to them in psalms, hymns and spiritual poems; he “sings” to them by using the God-given gift of “melody.” In everything he expresses “thanks” to God. He is never bitter or despondent. It is an atmosphere just saturated with heavenly love. It is an idyllic scene, almost like the ones we see in traditional art of saints walking in heaven with halos and playing music on harps.
That being the case, we certainly wouldn’t expect the leading participants in this idyllic atmosphere to be strutting around with an air of authority. There are appropriate times for the exercise of authority, and there are times when one’s authority is better off deferred or concealed. In the general atmosphere of Christian worship and comradery, it is best not to assert one’s authority, but to humble oneself before the other, knowing that anything we have, whether talent or authority, is from the Lord. A Christian employer needs to know how to get along with his Christian employee, and vice-versa. The hierarchy of the Church needs to know how to get along with their clerics and parishioners. Unlike the world, Christians answer to a higher authority. In so doing they show care and concern for even “least of his brethren” (e.g., Matthew 25:40, 45). Superiors, in order to foster good relations among all Christians, will voluntarily “submit” themselves as servants in an effort to be much more sensitive to their underlings than the world’s rulers are to theirs (cf., Matthew 20:25-28), because that is what Christ, their model, showed them when He washed the apostles’ feet (John 13:14). The important thing to distinguish in each of these cases, however, is that the legal requirement for subordinates to be subject to superiors is not suddenly whisked out of existence when the superiors voluntarily humble themselves to their underlings “in the fear of Christ.”
As noted previously, the Fathers likewise understood Ephesians 5:21 as teaching a general submission among Christian brethren. As Jerome says of the passage:
Let bishops hear this, let priests hear, let every rank of learning get this clear: In the church, leaders are servants. Let them imitate the apostle...The difference between secular rulers and Christian leaders is that the former love to boss their subordinates whereas the latter serve them. We are that much greater if we are considered least of all.”(Migne PL 26:530A, C 653-654).
This is also Chrysostom’s understanding. We see this as he applies Ephesians 5:21 to masters and slaves, a category of relationship that is not even mentioned among the verses in question (i.e., Ephesians 5:22-33):
‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet. (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142).
We also see that Chrysostom has used the same example of Christ washing the disciples’ feet that we had used earlier. This shows he understands that, when Christ “submits” Himself to the apostles, it is based on the desire to serve and love them, not because He is legally mandated to do so, or that His submissive relationship with the apostles is “mutual.” Again, the Fathers consider Ephesians 5:21 as merely a general command to all Christians to have the proper attitude and readiness of service toward each other. But when the Fathers address the specific duties of underlings toward those in authority, they never say that the latter is to be submissive to the former (e.g., masters are never told to be “subject” to their servants; bishops are never told to be subject to their clerics, and husbands are never told to be subject to their wives). Since Scripture was careful to make that distinction, the Fathers never referred to superior/subordinate relationship with the words “mutual submission,” for legally speaking, there was no such mutuality or mixing of roles.
In Homily 10, Chrysostom again regards Ephesians 5:21 as a general command to all Christians, but maintains that those in subordinate positions (e.g., wives and servants) are to continue showing the proper legal submission:
For if I charge free men to submit themselves one to another in the fear of God – as he said above, ‘submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ’ – if I charge moreover the wife to fear and reverence her husband, although she is his equal; much more must I so speak to the servant. It is no sign of low birth, rather it is the truest nobility, to understand how to lower ourselves, to be modest and unassuming, and to give way to our neighbor.
Here he says, even though the wife is equal, she is to “fear and reverence” her husband (as does Ephesians 5:33 – “And let the wife fear her husband”). Thus, human “equality” is not to be used as an excuse to withhold one’s submission.
Again, in Homily 10, Chrysostom, after referring to the general command for all Christians to submit themselves to one another, clearly defines the separate roles of husband and wife. The wife is to submit, the husband to love, even if one or the other of the spouses fails in their role.
For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.” And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.
An emphasis on remaining in subjection to an authority would be an important one for New Testament Christians to acknowledge, since in their newfound liberty they might fall into the mistaken notion that traditional roles of authority have become obsolete.(7) A servant, for example, may think that because he now enjoys Christian liberty, he is not required to obey his master, at least not in the same way he did previously. Similarly, a wife might think that since she and her husband are now Christians, she is not required to submit to him as she did previously. Not so, says St. Paul. In Colossians 3:22 he tells servants they have no such liberty, but are to continue being subject to their masters (“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh”). In 1 Timothy 6:1 he tells servants:
Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed. 2 But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
Again, in Titus 2:9 St. Paul tells the bishops: “Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters.” St. Peter does the same in 1 Peter 2:18: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward.” As for the command to wives to continue to be submissive to their husbands, we have addressed those passages earlier (cf., 1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; Titus 2:5, 1 Pet. 3:1-6, et al).
The Fathers on Ephesians 5:22
As we have seen, the Fathers did not interpret Ephesians 5:21-22 as teaching a mutual submission between husband and wife. All the exegetes that spoke on the passage separated Ephesians 5:21 from 5:22, and interpreted 5:22 as referring only to a wife submitting to her husband, and did not modify the teaching by reference to “mutual submission.” There was not one variant voice. Let’s look at a representative sample.
In Homily 10, Chrysostom writes on Ephesians 5:22:
Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.”
Chrysostom again speaks on Ephesians 5:22, this time stating that if the wife refuses to submit to her husband she will incur the wrath of God:
Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” (Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144).
Ambrosiaster (the writings attributed to Ambrose), concurs with the other Fathers:
As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” (CSEL 81.3:117-118).
Ignatius of Antioch says the same:
...and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behoves you also, therefore, as ‘a peculiar people, and a holy nation,’ to perform all things with harmony in Christ. Wives, be ye subject to your husbands in the fear of God; and ye virgins, to Christ in purity, not counting marriage an abomination, but desiring that which is better, not for the reproach of wedlock, but for the sake of meditating on the law” (To the Philadelphians, Ch 4).
Scriptures Identical to Ephesians 5:22
Not only do none of the Fathers use Ephesians 5:21 as a qualifying verse for interpreting Ephesians 5:22, not surprisingly, neither does Scripture. We see this in the two other passages that use identical language concerning wives being in subjection to their husbands.
Colossians 3:17-19:
All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behooves in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.
First, we notice the same formula that appears in Ephesians 5:22-33, that is: wives are to submit, husbands are to love. Second, and more importantly, we notice that the command for the wives to submit to their husbands is not preceded by a statement saying “being subject to one another,” or any hint of “mutual subjection.” Thus, Colossians 3:17-19 assures us that the biblical command “wives be subject to your husbands” stands alone when interpreted. It is not dependent or connected to a “mutual subjection” introduction. This is especially true since the clause “being subject to one another” does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament! Its exclusiveness is further confirmation that it applies to the confined context of Ephesians 5:19-21, not to Ephesians 5:22-33, or any other New Testament passage.
1 Peter 3:1
The same format is evident in 1 Peter 3:1 (“In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands...”). Here the identical command to be submissive appears, and, once again, there is no preface regarding “being subject to one another.” Rather, the preceding verse says: “For you were as sheep going astray, but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.” Obviously, there is no recourse to “mutual submission” to understand the meaning of a wife’s submission to her husband. In fact, the adverb “in like manner” (Greek: homoios) refers to a wholly different kind of preface – one that bases the wife’s subjection to her husband on the fact that Christians submit to Christ, the “shepherd and bishop” of their souls. The comparison shows that as Christ is in authority over Christians, so the husband is in authority over his wife, and neither are understood as reciprocal. Moreover, Christ’s authority is based on His titulary role as “shepherd” (Greek: poimena = pastor, e.g., Eph. 4:11) and a “bishop” (Greek: episkopon, e.g., 1 Tim. 3:2). Thus, when Peter says “in like manner,” this indicates that “husband” is also a titulary role for the man, and the basis upon which he rules over his wife.
That there is no mistaking what St. Peter means is confirmed by the remaining context. First, the rest of verse 1 reveals that the wife’s subjection to her husband is such an important feature of their relationship that it will be instrumental in converting the non-Christian husband to the Faith (“that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives”). Obviously, an assertive or domineering wife would not be conducive to his conversion.
Second, St. Peter elaborates on what kind of subjection the wife is to give to her husband. He declares:
2 Considering your chaste conversation with fear. 3 Whose adorning, let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: 4 But the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit which is rich in the sight of God. 5 For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: 6 As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.
Thus, even in the cosmopolitan world of Greek and Roman culture that many of these first century Christian women found themselves, Peter proscribes any worldly adornment. The truly submissive woman is one who has a meek and quiet spirit, fearing God above all. It is certainly not the picture of women we see today who feel not the slightest compunction asserting themselves ahead of men in all areas of authority.
Third, as in all the Pauline passages we have seen on this topic, this Petrine passage gives no suggestion that the husband is to be in “mutual submission” to his wife. Rather, he is told to give “honor” (Greek: timé = honor, respect, recognition, value) to his wife, understanding that of the two, she is the “weaker vessel.”
7 Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.
How could John Paul II have missed all this?
Can John Paul II’s Interpretation be Reconciled With Tradition?
Considering the possible distinction between submission from love and submission due to authority that we cited earlier, one might argue that in introducing the idea of “mutual submission” John Paul II may not be departing from traditional teaching. In other words, if the pope’s intention is to say that the husband’s “submission” to the wife is out of love for her, but the wife’s submission to the husband is due to his authority, then perhaps there is not a sufficient problem to warrant alarm.
The problem with this type of defense is manifold. First, as we have seen, neither the Fathers, the medievals, the doctors or previous popes have made such a distinction. No one has ever stated, based on the biblical passages in view, that the husband is to be subject to the wife as the wife is subject to the husband. All the major exegetes have understood Ephesians 5:21 as a general admonition to all Christians to promote a common deferential relationship with one another, not as something exclusive to the spousal relationship, or something that defines or modifies the wife’s legal responsibility to submit to her husband. Against this tradition, John Paul II insists that the husband is not only to be subject to the wife, but the subjection is “just as” the wife’s subjection.
The equality of submission is also denoted by the pope’s use of the word “mutual,” since its technical meaning requires that whatever is true for the wife’s subjection to the husband must be true for the husband’s subjection to the wife. “Mutual” means: “having the same relationship, each to the other,” or “belonging to, shared with, or applicable to all alike.”(8) If the submission is “mutual” and “just as” the other, then it is apparent John Paul does not contest that he would have it understood that in this “two-sided” relationship the husband is obligated to submit to the wife on the same level as the wife is obligated to submit to the husband, whereas in the “one-sided” relationship, Christ is not obligated to submit to the Church. As the astute scholar he is purported to be, John Paul has to know that his “mutual submission” interpretation was not taught by his predecessors. As such, the fact that he does not even make reference to their traditional teaching on these decisive biblical passages, let alone interact with them, is most disturbing.
Second, John Paul does not make the proper distinctions between the various types of submission involved. It is obvious from a reading of the Pauline and Petrine passages that the wife is told more than a half-dozen times to be in legal submission to her husband, whereas the husband is never told to do the same. As such, the New Testament designates a special category for the wife’s submission to her husband that precludes it from being mixed with or made equal to the common submission that Christians generally give toward one another. Left without distinctions, “mutual submission” is an oxymoron.(9) Theology is a science of making the proper distinctions, and unfortunately, all kinds of false ideas, and even heresies, are the result of a failure to do so, though most of them sound good on the surface.
Third, John Paul’s views on this subject are somewhat contradictory. As we have seen earlier, on the one hand, John Paul states in Mulieris Dignitatem that spousal submission is not like the submission between Christ and the Church, since the latter is a “one-sided” submission. This means that Christ does not submit to the Church (at least in the same way as the Church submits to Christ). Hence, Christ’s love for the Church (i.e., Eph. 5:25) cannot be considered, or result in, a submission to the Church, since love does not necessitate submission. Yet in his General Audience address of August 11, 1982, John Paul says that “love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife...just as the wife is to the husband.” Thus the husband is said to be made subject to the wife because of love, whereas love is not said to make Christ subject to the Church. The contradiction John Paul displays is in the face of the context of Ephesians 5:22-33 which gives no distinction between the Church’s submission to Christ and the wife’s submission to the husband, but actually compares one to the other.
What Did Previous Popes Say?
The confusion in John Paul II’s view is not seen in the teachings of his predecessors. They took the same view as the Fathers and medievals we have already covered. The most recent pope to speak on this issue was Pope Pius XI. He stated it thus:
Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commands in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.” (Casti Connubii, 30).
The only thing Pius XI added, and rightly so, was an explanation of the conditions and limitations of the husband’s authority over the wife. He writes:
This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different condition of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact. (Ibid).
Prior to Pius XI, Pope Leo XIII gave the same consensus as the Fathers and medievals. Pius XI refers to his words in Casti Connubii:
With great wisdom Our Predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on "Christian Marriage" which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.” (10)
Obviously, we see nothing in either Pius XI or Leo XIII regarding “mutual submission.” Leo XIII speaks only of “mutual relations,’ but in “both in him who rules and in her who obeys,” thus clearly defining the separate roles of both husband and wife.
More Analysis of Mulieris Dignitatem:
Let’s analyze more of Mulieris Dignitatem to round out the picture. I will underline the problematic sentences. John Paul II writes:
The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.
Here John Paul says that St. Paul’s command is a “new way” of understanding husband and wife relations. Is it? Does St. Paul say that he is giving a new command? We saw earlier that St. Peter, basing his teaching on the principles of the Old Testament, told the Christian wives of his day to “be subject to their husbands...like Sarah who was obedient to Abraham and called him lord” (1 Peter 3:1, 5). If today the wife’s submission is based on a woman who lived 4,000 years ago, there is certainly nothing “new” about requiring the wife to submit to her husband. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 St. Paul tells the women to “keep silent in the churches” and to “ask questions of their husbands at home” and thus he bases his command on “the Law” of the Old Testament and on “the Lord’s commandment” given directly to him. There is certainly nothing “new” about those two sources. Similarly, in 1 Cor 11:3f and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, St. Paul bases the commands for woman to be in subjection to the man on the relationship stemming from the time of Adam and Eve when their respective roles were put in place by God. Obviously, there is nothing “new” about Adam and Eve. Hence, there is nothing “new” in any of St. Paul’s writings regarding a woman’s role, and certainly nothing regarding “mutual submission” as the sense in which the wife’s subjection to her husband is to be understood. In fact, there are more passages in the New Testament that directly command the wife to be in submission to her husband than in the Old Testament!
John Paul II continues:
But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favor of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ.” The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.
Unless we are misunderstanding him, John Paul II is advocating that the references to the “subjection of woman” in Scripture cannot be understood as a command which singles out the sole responsibility of the wife. In so many words, John Paul claims that when you see “woman be subject” you must read “both be subject.” This is in the face of the fact that Ephesians 5:21 is the only place in Scripture where a general command to submit oneself to another appears in the same vicinity as the command for wives to submit themselves to their husbands.(11) “Mutual submission,” as we have noted earlier, means that whatever is true for the wife’s submission to the husband must be true for the husband’s submission to the wife, for that is what the word “mutual” means. Hence, if the wife’s submission is legally mandated, then the husband’s submission is legally mandated. But as we have seen from an analysis of the Fathers, the medievals and two other popes, no one has ever taught that kind of legal interchange between spouses. John Paul II, as he appears in various other cases, stands alone in the history of the Catholic Church.
If John Paul II does not intend to teach what I have described above, it surely is not clear in Mulieris Dignitatem. For the sake of the faithful, if he does not intend to teach it, he needs to make it clear. In the meantime, is a good Catholic obliged to give the pope the benefit of the doubt in instances like this? Certainly, in his general approach to the pope, charity and humility ought to lead a good Catholic to do so. However, in light of the specific Patristic, Magisterial and Scriptural evidence laid out thus far, and the additional information we are about to share, it is very difficult to do so. Catholics are not required to put blinders on, even in humble deference to the pope. This would indeed be a very dangerous and extreme kind of deference, and certainly not a genuine service to the Church or the Holy Father. Hence, we are obliged to raise our concerns, respectfully yet confidently, to the degree our abilities and calling require, which we are presently endeavoring to do in this essay. As for now, since there is no other statement in the last 25 years (at least one that I know of) in which John Paul modifies or clarifies his statement regarding “mutual submission,” then according to Canon Law, it is our “right and duty” to take him at his word and offer our conscientious and responsible objections.(12)
If John Paul’s view were the correct one, St. Paul and St. Peter had many opportunities to say so. All they needed to do was add the necessary qualification regarding spousal submission, and a simple one it would have been. But they never did. They told husbands to love their wives, not to be subject to them. There is not one command, or even a suggestion in the whole Bible, or in the patristics, or in any papal, doctoral or conciliar statement, that men are to submit to their wives. Granted, all Christians, whether they be popes, bishops, employers, husbands, government officials, etc, should all have an attitude of spiritual “submission” to one another, for we are all “foot washers” in the general sense of the term. Unfortunately, unless one distinguishes between the general spiritual submission Christians offer to one another over against the specific legal submission required of those under authority, this will create undue confusion and distort St. Paul’s teaching, and this has occurred in many Catholic circles today. Many think wives are no longer required to be obedient to their husbands because of the “new” interpretations of Scripture. Many contemporary wedding vows are minus a reference to the wife promising obedience. This is a recipe for disaster. The statistics for divorce ever since the women’s liberation movement bear this out. Unfortunately, some of this thinking is due to the ambiguous and misleading statements in Mulieris Dignitatem. As we have seen from the traditional teaching, however, the submission of the wife to the husband is not voluntary. The wife is as much obliged to submit to her husband as a priest is to a bishop or a citizen is to the government, and the submission on that level is not mutual.
How Could Such an Interpretation Seep Into Catholic Thinking?
The basic question now facing us is this: If the Fathers, the medievals, two popes, not to mention Scripture itself, give no indication that Ephesians 5:21-22 is to be interpreted as a “mutual submission” between husband and wife, where might such an interpretation have originated? We don’t have to go far to find the answer. It has been in the modernist/liberal hermeneutic for quite a while. The “mutual submission” interpretation burst forth in the 1930s from liberal Protestant seminaries and pulpits. Rest assured, it was not an interpretation of the variety which made a distinction between submission from love and submission from authority. Rather, the exegetes asserted that the husband’s submission to the wife was to be understood in the same way as the wife’s submission to her husband. Protestant biblical commentaries written during these years make it plainly evident that liberal theologians were anxiously reinterpreting Ephesians 5:21 to introduce a “mutual subjection” interpretation to Ephesians 5:22. After the days of Margaret Sanger and the suffrage movement in the 1920s, liberal Protestants had gained a substantial foothold in their universities and seminaries, and soon their liberal theology became worldwide, spawning the women’s liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.
When Pius XII gave Catholic scholars the go-ahead to experiment with the methodology of historical criticism for use in Catholic biblical studies (which originated with Protestant liberals as far back as the early 1800s), the floodgates were opened. Fueled by the ecumenical ties fostered by John XXIII and Paul VI, the main elements of Protestant liberalism seeped far and wide into Catholic scholarship. Using the same historical-critical tools they borrowed from liberal Protestants, Catholic scholars were coming to the same conclusion about the role of women – that Paul’s injunctions against women (i.e., acquiring authoritative roles in government, church and family) were culturally conditioned, if not culturally biased. Rather than exegete the Pauline passages at face value, it was now time, so we were told, to reinterpret them in light of the advances in modern society regarding the status of women. Not surprisingly, we find Catholic liberal scholarship’s premier biblical exegete, Fr. Raymond Brown, stating that Scripture not only contains errors in matters of history and science,(13) but also in “religious matters,” that is, commands such as those which tell women to be subject to their husbands.(14)
In his 1975 book “Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church,” Fr. Brown states:
...This may displease some who think that the Christian answer to the problem of ordaining women lies in a text like 1 Cor 14:33-34...or perhaps farther back, in the creation story of Genesis. But here we enter the realm of hermeneutics. Since the Bible contains the word of God in the words of men [emphasis his], these texts reflect the sociology of God’s people respectively in the first century A.D. and the eleventh century B.C. They cannot be repeated as normative today in a different sociology without first investigating whether the change of social condition does not require a different expression of God’s will for His people.
Fr. Brown goes on to prove my thesis in the next sentence:
It is precisely this question of hermeneutics that I shall try to grapple with, faithful to my title ‘The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for the Ordination of Women,’ by showing how the acceptance or refusal of NT criticism [i.e., historical criticism] shapes one’s ecclesiology, and how one’s ecclesiology or view of the Church is often decisive as to whether one thinks that women can or should be ordained.
In other words, Fr. Brown knows what the biblical text of 1 Cor. 14:33f actually says, but the question is whether we have to accept it as such. In an attached footnote he more or less proves that his intentions are to find some way to avoid Paul’s literal words. Brown writes in the footnote:
It has been suggested that this text [1 Cor 14:33-34] is not genuinely Pauline but was added as a polemic against the Montanist movement where women prophets played an important role; if so, it would offset 11:5 which permits a woman to prophesy. The question needs more study.
In other words, Fr. Brown does not hesitate to entertain the proposition – brought to him by another historical critic – that St. Paul didn’t even write the passage in question! Hence, whatever way he can, whether it is by claiming that Paul’s “sociology” was primitive, or that Paul didn’t write the piece in question, Fr. Brown will find someway to neutralize the clear literal meaning of the words to accommodate the modern appetite for innovation. That is what he calls “biblical exegesis.”
Usually absent from such re-interpretation of Scripture is a recognition of the safeguards St. Paul and the other New Testament writers built into their texts to ward off such “sociological” interpretations. These safeguards are especially prominent in the New Testament’s treatment of the role of women. For example, in 1 Cor. 14:34-38, there are about a half dozen such safeguards included in the text, none of which Fr. Brown, in all his verbosity on this topic, so much as mentions.
First, in verse 34, Paul makes it quite clear that the commands for women to keep silent in the churches is not a product of his culture or his own personal feelings, rather, it is “as the Law also says.” Immediately following, he adds the phrase “the word of God” in verse 36 showing that “the Law” to which he makes reference is indeed God’s law, not man’s. As regards the “Law,” Paul could be referring to any number of references in the Old Testament, including Genesis 3:16's injunctions against Eve, or Isaiah’s lament in Is 3:12: “O my people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O my people, those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths.”
So as Paul reiterates these commands to the churches, obviously it is his intent to tie together the divine commands from the past with his inspired teaching in the present to show that the command for women to keep silent is an all-pervasive truth that does not change with time. To reinforce this Paul goes on to say in verse 37 “the things I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.” That is, somewhere along the way, whether it was information Paul gleaned from the Gospels himself or received directly from the Lord (cf., 2 Cor 12:1-7), it is abundantly clear that the strictures regarding a women’s role in the churches is not a product of Paul’s “sociology,” rather, it is a divine mandate that will never change. In accord with his usual practice of giving us “two or three witnesses” to a solemn truth (cf., 2 Cor 13:1), here Paul has given us three witnesses, the witness of “the Law,” the witness of “the word of God” and the witness of “the Lord” to show that he had absolutely no intention of making his commands to women relative to the culture of the day.
In fact, Paul has a few choice words for people like Fr. Brown who think they know better than Scripture, or who think they can alter its words with their scientific theories. Immediately after Paul gives his command for women to keep silent in the churches, he then addresses those in the church who apparently had been ignoring the established rules regarding a women’s role. In verses 36-37 Paul writes: “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.” Similarly, it is today’s “historical critics” who think only they have discovered the true meaning of Scripture, and that because of this talent only they are the truly “spiritual” among us, yet all the while failing to realize that the very things they propose are directly against “the Lord’s commandment.”
John Paul II himself suggests that the injunctions against women were the result of a cultural conditioning in the time of St. Paul. He states in Mulieris Dignitatem:
‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife’ (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a ‘mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ’ (cf. Eph 5:21).
In other words, the statement “wives be subject to your husband” is said to be so culturally conditioned by the age in which he finds himself that St. Paul must bring forth a new interpretation to an otherwise common maxim. That is, St. Paul is said to be employing the clause “wives be subject to your husbands” not so much as a biblical command to wives, but as if he were quoting an outdated maxim of the past in order to reinterpret it or neutralize it in the present! As we have seen, John Paul II claims that St. Paul’s new interpretation is one of “mutual subjection” between spouses, without distinction or qualification. Unfortunately, it appears from all the evidence we have gathered that John Paul is oblivious to the possibility that it is his own interpretation of St. Paul that may be culturally conditioned (i.e., by the modern women’s liberation movement), since no Father, no medieval, no saint, no doctor or previous pope to him ever stated or even suggested that “wives be subject to your husbands” is to be interpreted as a “mutual subjection” between spouses.
Are we surprised to see these kinds of statements from John Paul II? No, not if one has been following his pontificate for the last 25 years. As I noted in one of my previous essays for The Remnant, already beginning in 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla quoted admiringly from all the top liberal Catholic and Protestant scholars of the day in his book Sign of Contradiction (e.g., Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, Teilhard de Chardin, L. Feuerbach, Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camus, et al.), the landmark book that laid much of the groundwork for the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Gatherings occurring in 1986 and 2002, another innovation unprecedented in the annals of Catholic thought and practice.
The Impact of Genesis 3:16
Another possible reason for the pope’s innovative interpretation of the “wives be subject to your husband” passages is his understanding of Genesis 3:16's clause “he shall rule over you.” It appears to be John Paul II’s view that the husband’s rule over the wife was not originally intended by God, but was a result of Eve’s sin. Thus, since the Gospel is specifically put in place to deal with sin, the pope reasons that a husband’s rule over the wife should be set aside for the more gospel-oriented role of “mutual submission.” He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem:
This statement in (Gen 3:16) is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and women in marriage.... But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman....The words of the Book of Genesis quoted previously (3:16) show how this threefold concupiscence, the “inclination to sin,” will burden the mutual relationship of man and woman.
Here I think it is implicit that the pope’s use of “mutual relationship” means, or at least leads to, “mutual submission,” and the only reason he did not use the term “mutual submission” is that the section of Mulieris Dignitatem which uses the phrase had not been written until later in the apostolic letter where it was addressed more thoroughly.
John Paul then ties in Genesis 3:16 in the following paragraph:
If Mary is described also as the “new Eve,” what [is] the meaning of this analogy? Certainly there are many. Particularly noteworthy is the meaning which sees Mary as the full revelation of all that is included in the biblical word “woman”: a revelation commensurate with the mystery of the Redemption. Mary means, in a sense, a going beyond the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that “beginning” in which one finds the “woman” as she was intended to be in creation...
What is John Paul referring to when he says “the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that ‘beginning’”? I think it is adequately clear that the pope believes the command “he shall rule over you” is the “limitation,” and that this limitation was not intended from the “beginning.” It was merely a consequence of Eve’s sin. Accordingly, Mary is viewed as the New Eve, the liberator of women, since she will reverse the “he shall rule over you” punishment imposed on Eve and the rest of womenkind. That being the case, it is John Paul’s plan that we implement this new state of affairs at the present time. It appears to be his view that the traditional Church, for the past two thousand years, failed to see this feminine liberation as a vital part of the Gospel until John Paul’s “mutual submission” interpretation came to set the record straight.
To show that the above analysis of John Paul’s view is endorsed by others, I will quote the words of Fr. Brian Wilson who, as you remember, was cited earlier in this essay as supporting the “mutual submission” view. Fr. Wilson writes:
On the one hand, there are certainly elements of domination in the relation between the sexes which, rather than a sacred part of God’s plan, are evil and a result of sin. Commenting on Genesis 3:16 Pope John Paul sees this event as establishing a “form of inequality” in the relationship that contradicts God’s plan.(15)
Then Fr. Wilson quotes from John Paul’s General Audience address of June 18, 1980:
Does not the rule “over” the other – of man over woman – change essentially the structure of communion in the interpersonal relationship? Does it not transpose into the dimension of this structure something that makes the human being an object, which can, in a way, be desired by the lust of the eyes?
A Rebuttal:
Even if the pope’s contention that Eve’s submission is caused by sin, does that mean we on this present earth are now supposed to be rising above and alleviating the divine mandate that a wife is to be in subjection to her husband? No, there is no such command in Scripture or in any Church teaching. As we have noted, the New Testament passages which speak of the wife having to be in subjection to her husband make no attempt to extricate women from the injunction of Genesis 3:16. In fact, they base their teaching directly upon Genesis 3:16, a divine truth which the inspired authors see as perpetual.
We see this perpetual basis, for example, in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which states that the woman is to be in silence and subjection to the man precisely due to the fact that Eve was the one who sinned. St. Paul gives no indication, either in the context of 1 Timothy 2 or elsewhere, that the silence and subjection is a temporary state of affairs, or one that is waiting for the enlightenment of future theologians (e.g., 20th century historical-critics) to show us that a literal interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is “culturally biased.” No, St. Paul is clear that as long as this present earth exists the original roles of man and woman stemming from Genesis 3:16 will abide.
We see the same thing in 1 Cor 14:34-35. St. Paul told the women “of the churches” to be in silence (NB: the plural, that is, the injunction applies to ALL the churches), so much so that if they have any questions they should ask their husbands at home, not in church. St. Paul contends that the commands to women are not merely his personal opinion, rather, they are from “the law” and the “commandments of the Lord.” Similar to 1 Timothy 2:11-14, he gives no indication that these injunctions are someday going to be relaxed as the Gospel progresses before the return of Christ.
What Does Genesis 3:16 Really Teach?
All the above analysis, however, is based on the pope’s contention that Genesis 3:16's clause “he shall rule over you” is a deviation from what was supposed to be practiced by husband and wife from the “beginning.” But we need not view Genesis 3:16 in that light at all. The clause “he shall rule over you” should not be viewed as a consequence of Eve’s sin, for the simple fact that Adam was already given headship of the family and authority over Eve before sin entered the picture! St. Paul assures us of this fact as he states that Adam’s authority over Eve was granted to him because “Adam was created first” (1 Timothy 2:13). Thus, his rule over Eve is based primarily on the order of creation. Unfortunately, John Paul fails to mention this fact.
Consequently, the aftermath of Eve’s sin is to be deduced from the clause “And your desire shall be toward your husband.” In other words, because of her sin, and the subsequent proclivity to sin which became a punishment for the human race (i.e., concupiscence), Eve will desire to rule over Adam, but God will see to it that Adam continues to rule over her. Prior to sin, Eve’s motives would be untainted by a desire to usurp Adam’s authority, and thus she would naturally assume her designated place as wife, helper and subordinate. Sin, however, would tempt her to see otherwise. Projecting this into the future, we can safely say that whenever we see women assuming authority over men and seeking to supplant them as God’s rulers, it is due to sin. This was exactly the state of affairs in ancient Israel when that nation began to apostasize. As Isaiah laments:
O my people, their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O my people. Those who guide you lead you astray, and confuse the direction of your paths (Isaiah 3:12).
We have sufficient evidence within the context to support the above understanding of Genesis 3:16. The Hebrew word for “desire” (teshuqah) does not refer to some sort of overwhelming affection Eve would have for Adam. It denotes something far more serious. We see a more precise understanding of its lexical meaning in the next and final time this particular phrasing is used in the Old Testament, Genesis 4:7, regarding Cain’s plight right after he murdered Abel. God says to Cain: “If you do well, is there not acceptance? If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door and its desire is toward you, but you shall rule over it.” Here we see that sin’s desire is to rule over Cain, but God tells Cain to rule over sin.(16) Thus, Genesis 4:7 helps explain the relationship in the Hebrew grammar between the “desire” and the “ruling.” In this light, the consequence of Eve’s sin is not that Adam would suddenly be put in authority over Eve. It was just the opposite. Adam was already in authority over Eve and sin would tempt her to desire to rule over Adam. But God would frustrate her desire and see to it that Adam maintained his God-given rule over her. If God ever relaxes that rule, it is not because He wishes women to be liberated from their husband’s rule, but because He is allowing sin to multiply for the purposes of judgment (e.g., 2 Thess 2:7-11), as we saw was also the case in Israel (Isaiah 3:12).
What are the consequences of “Eve’s” desire to rule over Adam and God’s withdraw of restraint from her? We see many of them in our society today, just as Isaiah saw in the time of Israel. Women leave the home and put their children (if they have any) in the care of paid-providers, while they compete with the man in all the areas of leadership, including government, church and employment. Their children grow up lacking the care and sensitivity known traditionally with motherhood. They turn to drugs, sex (including homosexuality), rock music, peers or anything that will relieve the gaping hole they feel inside. The unwanted children, of course, are eliminated through contraception and/or abortion, since otherwise they would get in the way of the woman’s pursuit of leadership outside the home. When the women are home, the society has conditioned them to compete with the husband for authority. When decision time comes, their wills clash. If not repaired, divorce ensues. In the wake of “women’s liberation,” the sad fact is that over half of all marriages end in divorce, and over sixty percent of second marriages have the same fate. Moreover, since married women are now more accessible in the work force, the military and government leadership, the incidence of adultery among them is staggering. Unfortunately, many of today’s women find out too late that they are happiest when they respond to their maternal instincts and are compliant with their husbands. The typical family today has two or less children per household across America, Europe, Russia and China. Many countries cannot even replace their dying populations. Husbands, because they have been brainwashed by a media which stereotypes them as weak and cowardly misfits, fail to assert their God-given role of leadership, and the family becomes highly dysfunctional. This malaise begins to perpetuate itself through successive generations until the family and society are so weak they cannot function any longer. They are replaced by single-family homes, orphanages, or even same-sex parenting. Essentially, many of the problems we are experiencing in modern society can be reduced to one problem: a confusion in the roles of the sexes. Men want to act like women, and women want to act like men, and unfortunately, their children suffer the worst consequences. These are just a few of the things that happen when “Eve” is allowed to fulfill her desire to rule over Adam.
Final Thoughts:
Although after a complete reading of Mulieris Dignitatem it is apparent that John Paul II’s heartfelt desire is to elevate women past the incidents of barbarism and domination they sometimes sustained in past cultures, we can also say, based on the above exegesis and historical research, that the way to accomplish this is not by reinterpreting the Scriptural teachings concerning wives being subject to their husbands. Reinterpreting them will just create bigger problems. Those passages are fixed in stone and their truths will never change. As we have seen, neither Scripture, Tradition nor the traditional Magisterium teach that the husband is to be in subjection to his wife based on some type of “mutual submission.” Rescuing women from unfair domination can only be accomplished by accentuating the command contained in the second leg of St. Paul’s teaching: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.” It is love, not submission, that men so desperately need to be taught. Men know all about submission. Their whole world is governed by the pecking order, and the competition out there is rather fierce. Likewise, men know when someone is trying to usurp their authority under the pretext of establishing equality or mutuality, and so-called “women liberators” fill that bill precisely. The quickest way to household unrest and eventual divorce is for the wife to threaten the man’s authority over his own household. He will naturally resent it and rightly fight against it. Rather, men need to learn the art of loving. That is why St. Paul tells them so often to love their wives, for they often find it hard to do. When husband’s do love their wives, submission to his gentleness is a pleasure for the wife, not a competition to be won by seeking his equal submission to her.
As St. John Chrysostom stated so wisely many years ago, and still remains true today:
Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
President of Catholic Apologetics International
9-29-03
Endnotes:
1) Envoy Magazine, Volume 5.4
2) The Wanderer, “Submissive Wives,” September 18, 2003. Emphasis in italics mine
3) Some try to evade the clear message of these Scriptures by suggesting that the word “head” (as in the husband is the “head” of the wife, cf., 1 Cor 11:3; Eph. 5:23) may not refer to the husband’s rule over his wife but merely his position as the “source” of his wife’s being, as in the “head” of a river being its source. As one can see from the patristic commentary on these passages, none of the Fathers saw it that way. As often as they refer to the husband being the “head” of the wife, they insist that headship refers to rulership. According to the meaning and usage of “head” in the original Greek (kephale), the Fathers are quite correct in their understanding. Although kephale might possibly include the meaning that the head is the “source,” this meaning in no way excludes, in any case, that the head is in authority over the subordinate (cf., Eph. 1:22; 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:10).
4) Greek is “en panti,” which literally means “in all” or “in everything.” This, of course, would mean all things that are godly and lawful, not sinful.
5) To get around this, some assert that “be subject” in Ephesians 5:21 introduces a nominative absolute, so as to mean “while subjecting yourselves to each other, the wives are to be subject to their own husbands.” But not only does this not solve the problem, it is an unwarranted imposition on the text, since the wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, and not as others subject themselves to the rest. Suffice it to say, no bible translation existing has rendered it as a nominative absolute.
6) There is a Greek textual variant here. Some manuscripts are missing the verb “be subject to” (Papyrus 46, Codex Vaticanus) and thus the words are put in italics in the ASV (1901) and NAS (1995). Most Greek manuscripts, however, contain the verb (Aleph, A, I, P, D, F, G, 6, 33, 81, 104, and many minuscules). It is followed by the majority of translations, e.g., KJV, DR, NIV, RSV, NAB, et al, including the 1550 Stephanus translation housing the Majority text.
7) Many today have made such conclusions, based mainly on one passage, Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus”). The pope himself makes reference to Galatians 3:28 as a supporting argument for his “mutual subjection” thesis. He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem:
“This is a call which from that time onwards does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. St. Paul not only wrote: ‘In Christ Jesus...there is no more man or woman,’ but also wrote: ‘There is no more slave or freeman.’”
No doubt, this is the reason the requirement for a head covering for women (cf., 1 Cor 11:4-16) was allowed to pass into disuse, as well as the reason women are now permitted to speak in church (e.g., reading the epistles, saying “body of Christ” to the communion recipient, leading in hymns, giving “reflections” on the gospel, etc). These innovations symbolize the post-conciliar church’s new interpretation of Scripture. But this kind of interpretation ignores the context of the passage. The context of Galatians 3 has nothing to do with authoritative and functionary roles or their application; rather, it is dealing only with who is eligible for the grace of God in salvation. The only thing St. Paul is teaching in Galatians 3:28 is that, in regards to salvation, God is no respecter of persons. He saves men, women, masters, slaves, Jews and Gentiles (e.g., Acts 10:34-35). Interestingly enough, when Scripture does put the roles of man and woman in contexts of authority and function (cf., 1 Cor. 11:3-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), liberals casually dismiss these texts as culturally biased or historically archaic.
8) Dictionary definition
9) Accordingly, “mutual submission” does not mean “mutual love,” or “mutual cooperation” or “mutual respect,” “mutual communication” or “mutual deference,” which represent the various attempts at redefining “mutual submission” in order to make the novel teaching palatable. None of the aforementioned terms have a legal foundation. “Submission,” on the other hand, has a primary legal and/or canonical basis, since it refers to the authority that one person or group has over another, such as the government having authority over its citizens, bishops over priests, employers over employees or husbands over wives. If one does not submit to these authorities, then he/she will suffer the legal or canonical consequences.
10) Taken from Pope Leo’s encyclical Arcanum divinae sapientiae.
11) The only other possible place is a textual variant in 1 Peter 5:5 (“Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility” – KJV). The words “submit” and “be subject” are from the Greek hupotasso. The first appearance (“ye younger submit...”) has no variants. The second appearance (“be subject”) appears in the Majority Text (followed by the KJV), but the manuscript evidence includes it only in codex P and three minuscules. All other major manuscripts do not include a second usage of hupotasso, and neither do the Latin translations (subditi, and its variations). Rather, the texts reveal the emphasis on each Christian to “be clothed with humility” from the Greek tapeinophrosunen, of which there are no textual variants. If it is insisted that the Majority text be followed here, still, the command for “submission” is a general command to all Christians, in a context of generating humility, not a cause for establishing legal submissive reciprocity between husband and wife.
12) As Canon 212:2-3 states: “The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
13) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 1169.
14) Fr. Raymond Brown writes: “If one has an a priori view of inerrancy that
forbids a religious error, one will have to argue insistently that Job (14:13-22)
did not mean what he seems to say” (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning
of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), pp. 16-17. Raymond Brown
was appointed the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission by John Paul
II.
15) Envoy Magazine, Volume 5.4. Emphasis mine. Later Fr. Wilson admits that the husband should enjoy a “certain leadership,” since a man “especially needs to feel that his ability to protect and provide for his wife and family is respected.” Notice that Fr. Wilson is not interested in what the husband’s role really is, but only that he “feel” like he is the leader.
16) The Hebrew waw-consecutive can be translated as “and” or “but” in both Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, since that is the contextual meaning of the phrase in these instances – a contrast between one proposition and another.
END
Catholic Apologetics International