1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

In the last issue of CFN, we investigated the Scriptures and the Patristic testimony on various New Testament passages teaching that the wife is to submit to her husband. In this issue, we will investigate more of these Scriptures and begin a final analysis of John Paul II’s views. In February, we will have the concluding installment to this series.

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:

...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:

17 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.

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 regarding the Church at large, not to the husband/wife issues in 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 for the wife 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 qualifying instruction regarding “mutual submission” to explicate the meaning of a wife’s submission to her husband. In fact, the Greek adverb “in like manner” (Gr: homoios) refers to a wholly different kind of qualification - one that bases the wife’s subjection to her husband on the fact that Christians are to submit to Christ because he is “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. 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 the term “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)not submission to his wife, with the understanding that of the two spouses, 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.

Can John Paul II’s Interpretation in Mulieris Dignitatum 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 John Paul II’s introduction of “mutual submission” may not be departing from traditional teaching. In other words, one might argue that 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 quite evident, however. John Paul II does not use it. 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 on the same basis 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 asserts that the husband is not only to be subject to the wife, but according to the wording of Mulieris Dignitatum 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.”10 If the submission is “mutual” and “just as” the other, then it is apparent John Paul II does not contest that he would have it understood that in his understanding of a “two-sided” relationship the husband is obligated to submit to the wife on the same basis as the wife is obligated to submit to the husband (whereas in a “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 “two-sided” or “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 in the New Testament 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. 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. Theology is a science of making the proper distinctions, and unfortunately, all kinds of false ideas 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 II states in Mulieris Dignitatem that spousal submission is not like the submission between Christ and the Church, since that between Christ and the Church 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, which is included as part of the context of argument in Eph. 5:25, cannot be considered, or result in, Christ’s 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. Previous popes 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, as we noted in an earlier essay, an explanation of the conditions and limitations of the husband’s authority over the wife.

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.”11

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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8