'Submit to One Another' — Mutual or One-Directional? (Ephesians 5:21)

Complementarian claim 1: "One another" (allēlois) does not require full reciprocity. Wayne Grudem argues that allēlois can mean "some to others" rather than "everyone to everyone," citing examples like Revelation 6:4 ("that men would slay one another") where clearly not every person slays every other person. Egalitarian response: Grudem's examples involve physical actions that are logically limited (not everyone can simultaneously slay everyone). But submission is a disposition, not a physical act — every believer can simultaneously adopt a posture of deference toward every other believer, just as every believer can simultaneously "love one another." The universal modifier "in the fear of Christ" confirms that all believers are in view, not subgroups. If Grudem's logic were applied consistently, "love one another" (John 13:34) would mean "some love certain others" — a reading no complementarian accepts.

Complementarian claim 2: Verse 21 is a new paragraph, separate from the household code. Some complementarian translations (ESV, pre-2011) place a paragraph break before v.21, treating it as a general principle unrelated to the specific wife/husband instructions. Egalitarian response: This is a translator's choice, not a textual fact. The Greek has no paragraph breaks. Grammatically, hypotassomenoi in v.21 is a participle dependent on plērousthe in v.18 — part of the same sentence. Moreover, v.22 has no verb and borrows its verb from v.21, proving they are grammatically inseparable. Placing a paragraph break between them severs a grammatical connection that Paul established. The ESV Study Bible (complementarian) now acknowledges in its notes that v.21 introduces what follows.

Complementarian claim 3: Mutual submission undermines all authority structures. The argument runs: if submission is truly mutual, then children need not obey parents, and slaves need not obey masters — leading to social chaos. Egalitarian response: Paul does not abolish all social ordering. He transforms it from the inside by the Spirit. Children are still told to obey parents (6:1), but parents are also told not to provoke children (6:4). Slaves are told to obey masters (6:5), but masters are told to "do the same things to them" and stop threatening (6:9). In every case, the person with cultural power is told to surrender it. The mutual submission of v.21 does not eliminate differentiation; it eliminates domination. As Jesus said: "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant" (Mark 10:43).

Complementarian claim 4: "Submit" (hupotassō) always implies authority over. Because hupotassō is used of citizens to governing authorities (Rom 13:1) and slaves to masters (1 Pet 2:18), it must carry the same authority-under-authority meaning in Eph 5:21. Egalitarian response: Word meaning is determined by context, not by importing a single sense from other passages. In Rom 13:1, the context is civil government — an explicitly hierarchical structure. In Eph 5:21, the context is Spirit-filled believers submitting to "one another" — an explicitly reciprocal structure. The same word can function differently in different contexts. Moreover, the middle voice in Eph 5:21 emphasizes voluntary self-arrangement, not coerced subordination. Paul's genius is taking a word associated with hierarchy and redefining it through the reciprocal pronoun allēlois and the Christological motivation "in the fear of Christ."

Complementarian claim 5: If submission is mutual, it is meaningless. If everyone submits to everyone, no one is really submitting. Egalitarian response: This objection assumes submission requires a superior and an inferior — that it only means something if one person is "above." But Paul defines submission through Christ's example (Phil 2:3-8): "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves." Mutual submission means each person voluntarily prioritizes the other's needs, interests, and flourishing above their own. This is not meaningless; it is the most demanding form of love. It is precisely because it requires the Spirit's power (v.18) that Paul does not issue it as a mere command but as a fruit of being filled.