This is part of a series on patriarchy, headship, and submission. See this index.

There are two primary, but related, issues at the root of the biblical grammatical argument on submission.

The first issue is whether or not the Greek middle voice is equivalent to the English active voice.

The second issue is whether or not submission always refers to submission to authority. If it does always refer to authority, does that hold for all instances of the word, including the active, passive, and middle voices, or just some of them?

As we discussed in Part 1 of the series, Wayne Grudem’s position a clear affirmative on both issues:

In order to validate his claim, we need to look at the examples. All 38 of them.

The Father and the Son

12 of the 38 references are found in four closely related passages:

All of these are used in the strong active or passive sense. The active sense is of a subject putting a target into submission. The passive sense is of an target passively being put into submission by an active agent.

The wider context is the prophecy found in Psalm 8. The prophecy and the narrower context of the words surrounding the verb we are examining (‘submit’) both indicate that rule is being discussed. Status is also indicated by both contexts.

Another three references are found in two other similar passage in scripture:

Peter rather plainly echoes what Paul wrote in the four other passages above.

This one does not discuss Psalm 8 directly, but rather discusses how the various authorities—demons in this case—are subject to Christ (and to church by way of Christ). This seems related to what was described above. As in those cases, authority itself is the explicit context (“…in your name” and “I have given you authority to…”). As above, by the power of the name of God, the demons are made subject to Christ and his followers. This joins the verses above with the strong active and passive senses: subjecting and being subjected to, respectively.

What do all of these—15 out of 38 references—tell us about the two open issues? It is clear from the context outside of the word ‘submission’ that the passages are discussing authority. This provides more than enough positive evidence of Grudem’s claim that ‘submission’ is associated with authority.

That said, the passages would still be associated with authority even if a completely different verb had been used. There are two reasons for this. The first is that authority is mentioned explicitly, so regardless of the verb choice, authority would still be the topic. The second is that the subjects being discussed are the Father and the Son. Both possess divine authority by their very nature. So we must be careful not to read too much out of this association.

Let’s demonstrate this with a practical example:

Notice that if I replace a few words of the paragraph, the passage is still about authority. Does that mean the meaning of the verb “be afraid” implies an association with authority? Of course not. It is not enough to show that some passages are associated with authority, Grudem’s claim requires that he show that all passages are associated with authority in such a close knit way that the word itself implies authority. That is a very high standard, and these references so far are not enough to adduce such a claim.

The association with authority is only with the active and passive forms of the word “submit.” We have yet to see any examples that use the middle voice before we decide if Grudem’s claim is correct or not. We will examine those below later on.

We also need to examine how the word is used in more than discussions of this single topic before we can make broad conclusions about its standard usage. So let’s continue next by looking at the other passages of scripture where the word is used in the context of authority.

Subject to Rulers

These are the only passages of scripture where ‘submission’ is explicitly used in conjunction with—an specifically about—rulers in government. As with the topic above, the subject of the passage is those in authority and this would be the case even if a different verb than ‘submission’ was used. But as above, undeniably, the word is associated with authority.

One wonders why Paul had to say “submit to authority” if “submit” always refers to authority. Seems redundant?

In Romans the middle voice is a possible grammatical interpretation. Since one of the uses is an imperative, it behooves us to ask if and how this usage is different from the active/passive forms we first examined above. However, the English translations above—”let be subject” and “be subject”—are used in passive form. But if the passage were translated as if they were in the middle voice in the original, it would read more like this:

Can you see the difference?

When translated as an active/passive in English, there is a clear delineation between the party giving commands and the party obeying commands. Active agency rests entirely on the one ruling over those who passively obey. When the New Testament authors discuss Psalm 8, God takes on this active rule and the world passively accepts it as it must, without agency. The one being ruled is ruled absolutely because of the authority of the ruler. There is no choice in the matter.

But when translated reflexively (in the middle voice) in English, the agency moves from the ruler to the one submitting themselves. This makes more sense of what Paul is saying. To avoid punishment, for example, one must follow the laws. Notice that the one doing the submitting is not submitting because of the authority of the ruler, though that certainly exists, but because of something else: avoiding punishment, conscience, duty, respect, and honor. Authority plays, at most, an implicit role.

To summarize, in the active/passive voice example, submission is given directly because of authority. In the middle voice example, submission is given indirectly (relative to authority): the authority is incidental (or implicit) to the point being made.

Implicit in this usage is that if Christians didn’t want to pay their taxes, they could choose not to. Presumably some Christians were using their newfound freedom in Christ to do this exact thing! They were not compelled by governmental authority. But, because they’d suffer the consequences and for God because he wouldn’t like it, Paul tells them that they should nevertheless submit in these situations. Yet, elsewhere, Paul confirms that we must always obey God rather than man. Paul does not tell us to submit to governments merely because of their authority.

Put another way, Christians have the authority to choose to obey their rulers and/or God. They should submit, yes, but they decide when and how to submit. They submit in ways that are proper, not merely because of authority.

ARGUMENT NOTE: Grudem’s translation, the ESV, treats these as if they are in the passive voice, not the middle voice. He can’t conclude that the middle voice implies submission to authority if he doesn’t think it is in the middle voice.

Subject to God

There is another class of verses that use the term ‘submission’ in the context of God.

The English translations are divided on these passages. A majority translate the indicative passively (here, here, here) and the imperative reflexively (here), but it is not unanimous. I’ve used that convention here, but it’s a subjective choice.

The contexts of these passages are not explicitly about authority. Indeed, the target of submission is different in each of the four cases: the Father, God, God’s law, God’s righteousness through belief. Authority is not explicitly in view, though it is on the periphery.

Should we conclude by inductive inference that the word ‘submit’ implies authority? Or is it enough that authority is implied because the subject is in each case related to the one true God?

Notice how the word “obey” does not insert nicely here. While you may read people say that ‘submit’ means ‘obey authority’, you can see how unnatural that is when the passage itself is not explicitly about authority. This indicates, rather strongly, that the word ‘submit’ itself does not imply obedience to authority, but that the association with authority is external, not inherent in the word itself.

Regarding the two issues, we find this evidence to be inconclusive. While these passages are logically compatible with Grudem’s viewpoint, they are not evidence of it. As we noted above, Grudem’s statement requires that every single use of ‘submit’ must be conclusively associated with authority. Given this, Grudem’s statement is not sustainable.

Other Uses

We’ve now examined more than half of references (22 out of 38). Those we’ve seen so far are are topically or thematically related to each other. Most of the passages discussed authority explicitly even without considering whether the word ‘submit’ implied authority. To put it simply: ‘submit’ is, of course, associated with authority in these passages because the passages happen to be talking about authority. They can’t not be associated with authority, just as every other word—verbs, nouns, adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, etc.—used in these passages is ‘associated’ with authority. But now we move to the passages that more-or-less stand alone within their own specific contexts and those without any explicit reference to authority.

Keep in mind as you read these that Wayne Grudem sees no qualitative distinction between the following passages and the ones we’ve examined so far. To him,

Let’s see if you agree.

We’ve finally come to passage where authority is not immediately obvious from the passage. A lot hinges on who “subjected” creation. Is it God? Is it Satan? Is it Adam? All three explanations have their defenders. It is not important that we answer which of the three is the correct (if any), only rather note that because all three are grammatically possible, authority cannot be either the sole or primary implication of submission.

Paul’s personification of nature is an obvious figure of speech. Creation, which was good when God created it, became decayed and fallen when Adam and Eve ate from the tree.  No one commanded nature to be fallen so that nature obeyed, it passively became fallen. It was a simple cause-and-effect.

Notably, because creation has no actual agency, the middle voice would have been impossible here. In English, it is universally translated using the passive voice. The only disagreement is whether the word “frustration,” “futility,” “vanity,” or “corruption” should be used. Creation was not subjected to authority. Creation may have been subjecting by authority, but that is a speculative inference.

“But,” you might say, “the will of the one doing the subjection must be an authority!”

To that I will use another word analogy, as we did with “afraid” above. Salvation by faith requires the authority of God, but salvation itself does not imply authority. One could, for example, be saved from a fire even though this has precisely nothing to do with authority. That salvation often involves authorities does not imply that the word salvation itself is about authority. As with salvation, we cannot assume that because ‘submission’ is used by someone with authority that the act of subjecting and being subjected is itself always about authority.

The fundamental question is whether or not the word can be used in cases where authority is not the focus. The answer is plainly “yes” in the case of both ‘submission’ and ‘salvation.’

There is a subtle equivocation that has been made. In the passage above, creation was not subjected to authority. But Grudem’s stance implies that wives are subjected to their husband’s authority because the word ‘submit’ was used. But that stance doesn’t work in this passage because the passage is about being subjected by an authority, not to an authority. But with regards to wives as we’ll see that—per Grudem—the middle voice implies that wives are not subjected by an authority, but rather to an authority (i.e. the husband; see: Titus 2:5). This is inconsistent and arbitrary.

This passage stands as positive evidence against Grudem’s claim.

There is a split among English translators here. Although many use the passive voice (as in the quote above), some, such as the KJV, use the middle voice in English:

This is really important because Paul is telling the church to submit, not to authorities, but to those who devote themselves to service. Paul is telling the church to submit to the servants. But Paul’s instructions do not end there. He tells the church to submit to anyone who chooses to join them in their work!

Men like Grudem have a big problem with verses like this. Paul is speaking to the men and women of the church. If Paul taught that only men could have authority, then how could Paul be telling the church—which includes men—to submit to those devoted to service—which includes women. The only way around this is to assume that Paul is only addressing men in this passage, not the whole church. But this is absurd, because Paul just got done telling the church to “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Do everything in love.” These are words plainly addressed to everyone in the church. Even Grudem’s translation, the ESV has a footnote on this:

If ‘submit’ implies authority, as Grudem claims, then Paul must be telling men to submit to the female servants of Christ who joined the (male?) servants mentioned.

But, much more likely, is that this passage isn’t concerned with authority at all. It doesn’t mention authority. It talks about servants, not leaders. If Paul really did believe that women could not be in authority in the church, then it is logically impossible for ‘submit’ to be used in the context of authority here.

I’ve already discussed this passage in Part 1 and Part 2. There I concluded that in the Luke 2:41-52 example, Jesus’ (supposed) obedience is explicitly contrasted with his (supposed) disobedience of his parent’s will. Whether this passage is about obedience to authority or not, it undermines Grudem’s positions either way.

If ‘submit’ means obedience to authority, then Jesus’ rightful disobedience implies that Jesus retained his higher authority even though he thereafter obeyed his parents. Thus, ‘submit’ cannot imply that the person submitting has lesser authority than the one doing the subjecting.

If ‘submit’ does mean obedience to authority, then Grudem’s claim that it always does is undermined.

Either way, this disproves Grudem’s stance.

Just as in 1 Corinthians 16:16, this highlights Jesus’ teaching that the servant is greater than the master. It completes the divine inversion of the expectations of human authority.

In any case, this passage is naturally translated in the middle voice in English:

Jesus—in the flesh—never gave up the authority that he had received from his Father, but always acted in accordance with it. He may have freely chosen to submit himself to his disciples by washing their feet, or to the will of his parents, or to the judgment of the Sanhedrin, Pilate, and Herod, but he nonetheless retained all authority that was granted to him. Submitting to others did not change his rightful authority.

Is this about authority? If it is, it isn’t made explicit, but is an inferential determination from what isn’t said.

What is said? That the prophets submit to the prophets: that they submit to each other. There is a very strong sense here that if one prophet speaks, he must submit to all the others. And if another in the group speaks, he too must submit to all the others. There is no sense in which a specific group of prophets are submitting to a completely different and separate group of prophets in a permanent unidirectional hierarchy. Paul is not saying that prophets should submit to the Pope of Prophets! Moreover, the reason given for this submission is not authority, but order. This is the conclusion we have shown in this series.

Which ever way you interpret this, it invalidates Grudem’s stance. If this is about authority, then it constitutes a second biblical example of the mutual application of authority—alongside the husbands and wives having explicit mutual authority over their bodies. If this is not about authority, then it invalidates Grudem’s claim that the word ‘submit’ is always about authority.

But what about women being silent? Setting aside that the authenticity of this verse is contested, the issue is again not one of authority, but of order. Submission is explicitly associated with silence, so a lack of silence—not a lack of obedience—must be explicitly associated with a lack of submission. Claiming this is about obedience to authority is an inference based on what is not said.

As with the prophets, silence—and thus order—is achieved by submission, not by authority.

Do you still agree with Grudem?

In Part 6, we will discuss the remaining passages, all of which use ‘submit’ in the context of relationships: husbands and wives, masters and slaves, etc.