What Exactly is Mutual Submission?

Please follow and like us:

John McKee delivers the March 2025 Outreach Israel News update.

a Messianic Insider episode, 12 May, 2021

What is mutual submission?[1] Last week I was interviewed on a podcast,[2] where I helped discuss one of the significant problems which has hit some sectors of the Hebrew Roots movement: promotion of polygamy and a severe misevaluation of the trajectory of salvation history, as it involves men and women in the Body of Messiah. There is a sector in the Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement, which absolutely believes that God is restoring patriarchy to His people, particularly the type of patriarchy you see in some of the early Genesis narratives. As I was being interviewed, the host wanted to discuss the concept of mutual submission from Ephesians ch. 5, and we did get into it somewhat. But I think that for many people who were watching or listening to the discussion, the concept of mutual submission is something which is just too foreign to them. There are misunderstandings which can take place, as the concept of mutual submission—at least in my experience—is not something you are likely to see discussed in various Hebrew Roots quarters, if it is even known about.

In Messianic Jewish quarters, the concept of mutual submission is known, and it can even be, albeit infrequently, discussed. Last Summer (2020) as part of my local Wednesday night home group, there was a study on Ephesians, and the topic of mutual submission from Ephesians 5, 6 actually came up. It was a very constructive conversation. But in the Hebrew Roots movement, the concept of mutual submission is barely even known—much less discussed. Infrequently, at least in Messianic Judaism, the concept of mutual submission can be discussed. It can be something which a few people think needs to be considered, in terms of marriage relationships and interpersonal relationships in the Body of Messiah.

However (and I am not trying to say this in a demeaning way), almost everyone in the broad Messianic sphere of influence—composed of Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Roots, or whatever—probably has not investigated this too much at the theological level. How many leaders, in Messianic Judaism for example, who may have some religious studies training, did not have this as a part of their religious studies training—especially regarding some of the debates which have taken place over the past three to four decades? We are going to be getting into some of this today.

The debate which has emerged between complementarians, who adhere to an ideology of “equal in value, but separate in roles”—and egalitarians who believe in “equal in value and open opportunity in roles”—is something which hopefully I can give you a concise, yet thorough theological explanation for. What do egalitarians frequently mean by emphasizing mutual submission?

The term egalitarian is derived from the French égal, meaning equal. We are especially known by our commitment to an ideology which stresses the equality of males and females in the Body of Messiah, by the sacrificial work of Yeshua. And, we are known for our commitment to open opportunities for leadership, for both males and females. There are many different aspects regarding complementarianism and egalitarianism in the world of theology. Anybody who is getting a seminary degree today, is going to have to deal with it. This even concerns people in the Messianic world, who are going through some kind of Messianic Jewish studies program; they will have to deal with this issue, because it is not just something which confronts evangelical Protestantism. It is also something which directly affects the Synagogue, certainly Conservative and Reform Judaism, and it even affects Jewish outreach and evangelism.

What do egalitarians frequently mean by emphasizing mutual submission? An egalitarian ideology tends to be marked by its stress on mutual submission in marriage, as being something which not only involves the submission of a wife to her husband, but it is also something which involves the submission of a husband to his wife, based within Ephesians 5:21-33:

“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ [Genesis 2:24]. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband” (Ephesians 5:21-33, NRSV).

The main difference, between egalitarians and complementarians, in approaching this passage, is how complementarians often start their reading of the topic of submission in Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands” (2011 NIV). Egalitarians, in contrast, start their reading in Ephesians 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (2011 NIV).

Egalitarians such as myself, start their reading of Biblical submission, in Ephesians 5:21. We believe that the submission which is discussed in Ephesians 5:22-33, is controlled by the overarching premise of being in submission to one another. Other key passages for us as egalitarians, include Philippians 2:4, “do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (NASU), and Romans 12:10, “love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor” (NRSV).

Differences First Versus Mutual Recognition

Many of you have probably heard of the big shift which a ministry like First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) made in 2009, in abandoning its One Law position.[3] What they had once taught, was basically an equal opportunity for Torah keeping, for Jewish and non-Jewish people. In 2009, they changed to a Divine Invitation position, which is that Jewish people must keep the Torah, and non-Jewish people may keep the Torah.

I am the first person to say that the One Law position they had been espousing in 2009, was in need of a significant overhaul and major troubleshooting—including abandonment of the very label “One Law.” Our family thought that what was more appropriate, was an emphasis upon the universal education of everyone in the community of God, as would be seen in Deuteronomy 31:12: “Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the Lord your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law” (NASU). All need to be paying attention to and instructed in Moses’ Teaching, and with that there needed to be an emphasis on the power of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:25-27, of supernaturally transcribing the Torah onto the heart and the mind. Our ministry itself made some adjustments, over the controversy of “One Law,” not only in how we approached various Torah passages, but also became much more open and honest about the difficulties we had with a great deal of the legalism it promoted.[4]

Theological overhauls, alterations, and changes always take place. What I think really offended our family about that whole shift in 2009, though, was how ministries like First Fruits of Zion—but especially denominations like the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC)—really started coming out emphasizing a differences-first spiritual ideology. Our family originally started our involvement in things Messianic in 1995, at a UMJC congregation. We got to witness there, at least, how Jewish people came before everyone in the Kingdom of God, with non-Jewish people being a distant second. We were told that if you were in Messianic Jewish congregations as a non-Jew, you would not be treated with the same degree of significance or importance as Jewish Believers. And actually, such an orientation has proved to the detriment of the UMJC and many of its congregations. Many have ended up leaving it, and moving over to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), which has a much more open approach when it comes to non-Jewish Believers involved in Messianic Judaism. Others have disaffiliated, and have chosen to remain independent.

One of the most appreciable aspects about the MJAA approach to non-Jewish Believers who come into the Messianic movement, is that they simply have wanted to make sure that they are genuinely called by God into it.[5] Yes, it is true how many non-Jewish Believers have started out, by embracing their faith heritage in Israel’s Scriptures in tangible ways (most especially by observing the Biblical feasts). But it is also important that they participate as co-laborers in Jewish outreach and evangelism, and in standing against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

Many of the challenges and insecurities, we have witnessed over the years—certainly going back to the drama of 2009—could have been better navigated, if today’s Messianic community had a strong mutualist spiritual ideology.

It is required that non-Jewish Believers who come into the Messianic community, need to recognize the struggle which Jewish Believers have gone through in receiving Yeshua into their lives. Many have been rejected by their families, by their communities, and they are treated as being crazy idiots. Non-Jewish Believers in today’s Messianic community, absolutely need to recognize the struggle which most Messianic Jews have gone through in becoming Believers. This involves not only recognizing how the struggles of being rejected by one’s Jewish family and the Jewish community are ongoing—but extends to being sensitive to the religious terms one uses at a Messianic congregation or synagogue, going beyond using “Yeshua” instead of “Jesus.”[6]

Far too frequently, though, the sensitivity non-Jewish Believers in Messianic Judaism are asked to extend to Messianic Jewish Believers and the needs of Jewish people—have not been reciprocated. Non-Jewish Believers who have been called into the Messianic community, have also given things up. They often have given up the security of being a part of an established denominational church which has procedures, doctrines, and a religious culture of doing things (which even today in 2021 is not paralleled in much of the Messianic community). They have had to give up, of course, many family traditions. This is not just going to church on Sunday or observing Christmas or Easter, but they give up on a lot of family recipes involving pork and shellfish. So, it weighs a great deal on them, when they make the commitment to being part of the Messianic community and its unique mission and purpose.

For Messianic Jewish people to reciprocate, and recognize some of the things which many people have given up, who have come into the Messianic community from evangelical Protestant backgrounds, would go a long way! These are things they will never be able to have again, even in some of their new experiences. Many of their extended family—while not quite rejecting them to the extent that some Messianic Jews’ family has been known to reject them—still treat them with a great deal of criticism, skepticism, and hostility. There can be anti-Semitic attitudes and accusations issued against non-Jewish Believers, committed to the Messianic movement and lifestyle.

If there had been back in the 2000s, more of a mutualist ideology—outdoing one another in showing honor—with Messianic Jews’ struggle recognized, and Messianic non-Jews’ struggle also recognized, we could have been able to weather some of the storms of the 2010s much better, which came as a direct consequence of the First Fruits of Zion shift.

The problem is that a mutual submission ideology is largely not a part of the theological portfolio of today’s Messianic community.

While today’s Messianic Judaism does not have the polygamist question hanging over it, like many people in Hebrew Roots do, today’s Messianic Judaism, on the whole, is widely seen to not emphasize mutuality within marriage. It will surely emphasize a wife submitting to a husband, but does it ever emphasize a husband submitting to a wife, and a partnership marriage coming forth? Generally speaking, it does not. Although I will have to say, to be perfectly fair, that with the 2020s upon us, and with many people from the Millennial generation taking on positions of leadership and teaching, you are like to see or hear about it more and more. I find that to be very encouraging!

A mutual submission ideology, where brothers and sisters in the Lord look out for one another, considering the place of one another, is believed by egalitarians to be the main answer to stopping suspicion, rivalry, bitterness, resentment, mistrust, and disrespect of persons toward one another in the Body of Messiah. Mutual submission promotes respect, honor, deference, interdependence, interreliance, and a pooling of the gifts, talents, skills, and resources of men and women in the Body of Messiah, for the work of God’s Kingdom. Mutual submission, while required to be demonstrated toward brothers and sisters generally toward one another, is most especially required to be demonstrated specifically of a wife toward her husband and a husband toward his wife.

Mutual Submission in Marriage

There are too many examples, throughout contemporary evangelical Protestant complementarianism, where husbands make decisions without considering the thoughts of their wives. This is where marital discord and tensions frequently result. An egalitarian framework of mutual submission and decision making, by the joint consultation and consensus of husband and wife together, should be something which we see as valuable. This is to harbor far more cooperation, love, trust, and respect in the marriage bond.

While it can actually be witnessed that there are areas of agreement between egalitarians and complementarians, egalitarians are widely seen—listen to me very carefully here, because this gets a little technical—to oppose the concept of what is frequently labeled as “male headship,” meaning male leadership. Egalitarians usually offer an alternative approach to Ephesians 5:23.

So if someone such as myself does not believe in what is commonly labeled as “male headship,” meaning male leadership, what do I believe about Ephesians 5:23?

I would read Ephesians 5:23 this way:

“For the man is the source of the woman, as Messiah also is the source of the assembly, being Himself the Savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23, author’s rendering).

Listen to me very carefully here. Egalitarians (and this includes me) frequently conclude that the Greek kephalē, which is literally “head”—and everyone agrees that kephalē means the head of an animal or a human being, with clear uses of that in the Scriptures—do not often believe that kephalē means “leader.” Instead, for a passage like Ephesians 5:23 (and similarly also 1 Corinthians 11:3), kephalē means “source” or “origin.”[7]

So if one looks at Ephesians 5:23 with head actually meaning “source” or “origin,” how might this affect your reading of Ephesians 5 here? The man being the source or origin of the woman in Ephesians 5:23, highlights the significance of Eve originating from Adam. Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23, NASU). Egalitarians conclude that if a husband looks at his wife, as though she originated from him—far from looking at her as his inferior, she should be greatly loved cherished and nurtured—per the example of the Messiah as Savior (Ephesians 5:25-27). A husband should be willing to die for the needs of his wife, and a husband needs to decisively treat and love his wife the same as he would treat or love himself (Ephesians 5:28-29). Such will naturally lead to greater unity, tranquility, love, and appreciation in a marriage!

Criticisms of Mutual Submission

To be certain, there are various criticisms of the principle of mutual submission. Does an egalitarian model of a husband and wife in mutual submission to one another, eventually see the wife become the sole leader of the home, with the husband dismissed as a leader? This is an accusation frequently made by complementarians. An egalitarian model does not at all dismiss the necessary leadership of a husband and father within the family, as husbands definitely need to play an active role in the lives of their wives and children, looking out for their well-being, both material and spiritual.

An egalitarian model would be seen to uplift the leadership of a wife and mother within the family, and would stress that significant decisions for the family should not be made exclusively by the husband. Both husband and wife are to be co-leaders of the family. Significant decisions for the family should be made by the mutual consensus of the husband and wife together, after a significant discussion and review of an issue or matter. All of us have probably witnessed various scenes or incidents in religious settings, or from our interactions with various friends or extended family members, where primary male leadership has resulted in the distinct concerns and needs of females being completely disregarded. Husbands lead their families as autocrats, who frequently make decisions without passing it by the opinion of their wives.

Egalitarians want the concerns and needs of all in the Body of Messiah, and in the family, to be taken into consideration, because we believe that it will result in a more unified, cohesive and effective collective unity. Husbands and wives regularly communicating with one another on the affairs of the home, expressing their close needs and concerns with one another, and praying with one another in unity for the deep-seated issues of the other—would be obvious forms of mutual submission. And, this kind of uplifting is one which many complementarians would be widely seen to endorse.

For many complementarian readers of Ephesians 5:21-33, the issue they have is not so much with a mutual submission model where the feelings of both men and women in the Body of Messiah are taken into consideration. Their issue does not tend to even be with how a seemingly mutual submission of wife to husband and husband to wife, in Ephesians 5:21-22, can be extended to the consideration of others’ needs in the faith community. The real challenge involves Ephesians 6:1-9, where you see a relationship of a father to children, and a master to a slave. While it is easy to see how children are to submit to their parents or a slave is to submit to a master, what about a parent or parents submitting to their children?

In Ephesians 6, Bible readers clearly see how a father is not to provoke his children to anger or bitterness (Ephesians 6:4). The childrens’ emotional needs and concerns are to be taken into consideration. This should involve parents regularly talking and communicating with their children, and there being frank and open discussions on issues which matter to the family. Sometimes, a son or daughter may actually say something regarding the family unit, which a parent has to legitimately defer to.

What about a master submitting to a slave? Obviously, a First Century master, who was a Believer, was to treat his slave properly. We have the clear Biblical example of the Epistle to Philemon, and what Paul directed him to do. Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus was going to be returned to him, and Onesimus was to be treated as a brother in the faith. This came with it the implication that even though Onesimus ran away, because he was now a fellow believer in the faith, Philemon had to manumit him as a slave. That would be a certain type of a submission of a master to a slave; if a slave was a Believer, he should have been set free.

The Submission of Messiah

Now back to our main material here: the issue which complementarians frequently have, is not husbands and wives working together, praying for one another, or being in communication with one another. Their issue is not with parents being considerate of their childrens’ needs—or even a First Century slave owner being considerate of a slave’s needs, to the point of releasing a slave from bondage. The issue which complementarians frequently have, is how this is worked out on a wider level, in the relationship the ekklēsia has to the Messiah. Ephesians 5:24, within a mutual submission framework, would not only see the ekklēsia to submit to the Messiah, but the Messiah would be seen to submit to the ekklēsia.

How would this even be possible? Does this mean that God Himself actually has to do what the assembly tells it to do? That is how many, most incorrectly, take the submission of the Messiah to the ekklēsia. No, God does not submit to the assembly, when the institutional Church says that it is changing its values—and so with that God changes God’s values. That would be a complete and total misunderstanding, because the text of Ephesians 5:25-26 specifies the major act of submission performed by the Messiah to the ekklēsia:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Messiah also loved the assembly and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:25-26, WMB).

The Messiah’s submission to the ekklēsia has been demonstrated in His incarnation as a human being, His humiliation, and His giving up of Himself unto death for the assembly, the ekklēsia. What Does Ephesians 5:25 say? “Messiah also loved His community and gave Himself up for her” (TLV). There is actually a book I have in my library which deals with this very topic, entitled As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission by Alan G. Padgett.[8] The main substance of the Messiah’s submission to the ekklēsia, is based in the confession of the Carmen Christi hymn, of the Messiah emptying Himself of His exalted glory, being born as a human, and being brutally sacrificed:

“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6-8, NRSV).

So, when we talk about the submission of the Messiah to the ekklēsia, it is to be understood along the lines of the Messiah’s incarnation as a human, and His self-sacrificial service and death for the redeemed. We are not talking about our Eternal God, the exalted Lord Yeshua in Heaven, changing God’s values because the liberal Church system out there in the world, requires God to change to their whim. The type of sacrifice unto death, which the Messiah offered for the assembly, is the type or level of submission a faithful husband has to be able and willing, to offer toward his wife. And, that level of submission of a human husband toward his human wife, not only should require a husband to treat his wife as his equal, but as Ephesians 5:28-29 specifies,

“Even so husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly” (Ephesians 5:28-29, WMB).

Many people in today’s Messianic community, and certainly Hebrew Roots movement, do not quite understand or cannot process too well, the concept of mutual submission. Many have not investigated it theologically. Many are unwilling to investigate it theologically, and are content with having marriage relationships of a one-way submission of a wife toward her husband. This can then frequently manifest itself in one’s approach toward the people in the Body of Messiah, Jews and non-Jews, and how we all relate toward one other and serve one another—or not.

Our Service to One Another

I have just given you a brief theological review of mutual submission, and how our service to one another and considering the needs of other people, is all predicated on the example given to us of Yeshua in His human incarnation. In being self-sacrificial, if need be, a husband needs to be willing to die for his wife.

Now obviously, we have not touched on every single perspective or every single approach, which could be offered for Ephesians 5:21-33, and some of the continuing instruction in Ephesians 6:1-9. (If you do not already, I encourage you to acquire for your personal or congregational libraries, a copy of my commentary Ephesians for the Practical Messianic.) As we enter into the future, I do not know what some of the debate will look like in the Hebrew Roots movement, but in terms of the debate in the Messianic Jewish movement, you are going to see more and more young people from the Millennial generation, who will have had to engage theologically with the concept of mutual submission.

Promoting a mutual submission ideology, at present, includes me, Outreach Israel Ministries and Messianic Apologetics. A mutual submission ideology affects how we read other passages of Scripture as well. It affects, more than anything else, how we look at and consider the needs of others, in the marriage relationship. Do we need to see decisions made from a one-way perspective of the husband deciding and the wife following? Or do we need to see decisions made on the basis of how—when a major matter for certain comes along—husbands and wives need to talk about it, discuss it, and then come to a joint decision and agreement? This latter approach is not something which many in today’s Messianic community believe. Yet, it is something you are doubtlessly going to hear more and more about in the future.

Some, upon considering an emphasis on mutual submission in marriage, might think that today’s Messianic community has got so many other divisions, why do some of us have to have a (strong) disagreement about this issue? Why can we not all just get along with the way things have traditionally been? While it is true that there are many unnecessary divisions today’s Messianic movement may have, and that our faith community is going through some of the same growing pains and patterns as every other religious movement which has preceded it—the issue of mutual submission involves far more than just what one considers to be the best model for a happy, blessed, and impactful marriage.

If a husband and wife have a marriage partnership based on a mutual submission of one to the other, and vice versa—that should then reflect on how diverse groups in the Body of Messiah relate, interact, partner, and work together. Husband and wife do not lose their anatomical or gender differences, if they serve together as co-leaders of the family. If anything, a partnership marriage might actually maximize the effectiveness of both husband and wife as a team.

How might recognizing some of the advantage of a marriage relationship, based on the premise of mutual submission, possibly affect the development of today’s Messianic movement? Many non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement, claim that they have been treated as second class to Messianic Jewish Believers. Today’s Messianic movement largely does not function on a mutual submission model. What would happen, what positive changes might come, if this were to ever change? What if we actually started to operate on the basis of how all of us were to pool our unique gifts, talents, and skills, in submission to one another—and for fulfilling the Messianic mission of Jewish outreach, evangelism, Israel solidarity, and in working toward the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel (cf. Acts 1:6)?

These are some deep questions I know many have not ever really considered. But I think they are important, as we contemplate our future.

A principle of mutual submission is a definite part of not just my theological portfolio; it is how my own parents modeled marriage to me. It is the only way I would do marriage. I sincerely hope and pray it is something we can see taken seriously by many more in the days to come!

NOTES

[1] This has been adapted and edited from the textual transcription provided by YouTube.

[2] David Wilber, “Controversy Corner: Answering Objections from Pete Rambo” (06 May, 2021). Available online via <youtube.com/@DavidWilberBlog>.

[3] Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster. “‘One Law’ and the Messianic Gentile” Messiah Journal Issue 101, Summer 2009/5769; Aaron Eby, Toby Janicki, Daniel Lancaster, and Boaz Michael. (2009). Divine Invitation: An Apostolic Call to Torah. First Fruits of Zion. Retrieved 13 October, 2009, from <http://ffoz.org>.

[4] Consult the author’s article “Approaching One Law Controversies: Sorting Through the Legalism” (appearing in the Messianic Torah Helper).

[5] Consult the author’s article “The Calling of Ruth and Non-Jewish Believers in Today’s Messianic Movement” (appearing in The Messianic Walk).

[6] James Appel, Jonathan Bernis, and David Levine, Messianic Judaism Class, Teacher Book (Copenhagen, NY: Olive Press, 2011), 76.

[7] For a summary of views surrounding the term kephalē, consult C.C. Kroeger, “Head,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), pp 375-377; Alan F. Johnson, “A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of ‘Head’ (Kephalē) in Paul’s Writings,” Priscilla Papers Issue 20:4, Autumn 2006; Lynn H. Cohick, “Headship,” in Joel B. Green, ed. et. al., Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), pp 349-350; Richard S. Cervin, “On the Significance of Kephalē (Head): A Study of the Abuse of One Greek Word,” Missing Voices: A special edition journal of Christians for Biblical Equality 2014; C.L. Westfall, “Head,” in Scot McKnight, Lynn H. Cohick, and Nijay K. Gupta, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023), pp 399-402.

[8] Alan G. Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).