Mutual Authority in Marriage

We hear a lot about mutual submission, but not as much about mutual authority, which is kind of odd, for Paul's description of it in 1 Corinthians 7 leaves us in no doubt:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor 7:4, NASU).

The mutual authority husbands and wives share is meant to ensure fidelity and mutual satisfaction in marriage. Neither party has the right to refuse the other - except when both have mutually decided to devote themselves to prayer. 

But why is mutual authority important? Can't we just talk about mutual submission and call it good? Mutual authority is important because it is based on difference and mutual need, while mutual submission is based on sameness and mutual respect.

You see, we submit mutually both in the Body of Christ and in marriage when we are asked to do something anyone could do. We could resist and say no thanks, but because of love and respect we agree to co-operate. But when it comes to mutual authority, one has what the other one needs, wherefore mutual authority ensures that the other party doesn't have the right to refuse and leave the other one dissatisfied and in danger of infidelity. Yet, mutual submission ensures that mutual authority does not become an excuse for oppression, for mutual submission requires that both parties take the weaknesses of the other party into consideration and accept a refusal every now and then. 

Because married couples share mutual authority, the idea that the man has unilateral authority over his wife doesn't come from the Bible; it comes from the world of patriarchy, which is based on a hierarchy of worth.

As God brought the newly created woman to the man, he recognized instantly that the one he had been looking for among the animals stood before him, for he exclaimed, “This one!” What did the man recognize when he saw the woman? It is clear that he rejoiced because he had found another human being, for he called the woman a “female human,” something he had not been able to say to another being while naming the animals. But if hierarchical theologers are correct in saying that the man’s prior creation gave the man authority, the first man must have seen with his own eyes what we can only read about in Genesis 2. In other words, something about the woman must have told the man that she was created to follow him, for God never said anything about the man’s authority to the newly created humans.[i] Perhaps it was the woman’s body, for their bodily difference was easy to see due to their nakedness. Yet, sexual complementarity is said to be the reason married couples have mutual authority: the husband does not have authority over his own body—the wife does—nor does the wife have authority over her own body—the husband does.[ii] If sexual complementarity is based on bodily difference, and therefore mutual need, the foundation for the man’s authority must be found in something other than mutual need, for a woman doesn’t need a man to command her, but a man needs a subject if he is to have authority. But if the man’s authority is not based on mutual need, can we continue to talk about complementarity? Not really, for what we have is a hierarchy (Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles, p 50-51.

If marriages should consist of both mutual submission and mutual authority, a hierarchy is out of the question, for a hierarchy accommodates neither; a hierarchy has has no use for mutual authority or mutual submission, as it gives men unilateral authority and demands unilateral submission from the woman. By upholding mutual authority and mutual submission, the Bible rejects the hierarchical model, and calls all Christians to a life of selfless servanthood. This becomes even more evident when we remember that even God didn't reject servanthood and submission when our salvation was at stake (Phil 2:6-7).

[i] John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI.

[ii] 1 Corinthians 7:3-4