Negotiating a Christian Marriage - Part 3: Wives, Submit to Your Husbands

Christians generally have little difficulty affirming the broader teachings of the biblical narrative; however, tension arises when those teachings are pressed into specific application. The letter to the Ephesians provides a clear example. Some interpret Paul’s instructions regarding submission and headship in marriage in ways that reduce women to subjugated positions beneath men. Others react with an approach so expansive that the categories of submission and headship are effectively emptied of meaning. Complicating matters further is the nature of Paul’s writing: we possess only one side of the correspondence, with limited insight into the questions or circumstances that prompted his instruction. For this reason, a strictly literal application is insufficient. We must carefully consider what Paul intended in his use of the term “head”, because the underlying theological truth in the passage remains intact, even if it has at times been distorted to the point of rejection.

Ephesians 5:22–24 states: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

A central issue in interpreting this passage concerns the meaning of authority. The New Testament does not present headship and submission in terms of authoritarian control or hierarchical dominance. Fostering the idea of “who is in charge” corrupts the love embedded in the principle of headship—distorts the relationship between Christ and the Church—and corrupts God’s headship over Christ. The broader context of Ephesians indicates that submission within marriage is mutual and patterned after the believer’s submission to Christ (cf. Eph 5:21). The difficulty in contemporary application often stems from a neglect of foundational theological principles, compounded by teaching that reduces submission to a narrow and often distorted understanding of headship.

The common assertion that a woman must submit to the “authority” of a man because a man is the “head” of a woman. Headship becomes theologically misleading when equated with unilateral control. In Paul’s framework, headship denotes responsibility and accountability before God. It identifies the one whom God holds responsible for submitting to begin with, not the one who exercises coercive authority. This principle reflects a broader theological ordering: Woman to Man, Man to Christ, and Christ to God. Yet this ordering does not imply servitude. Christ himself, though equal with God, submitted to the Father; his submission was not a denial of equality but an expression of relational fidelity and purpose. Similarly, while some argue that the Greek term kephalē (“head”) should be understood as “source,” such a claim, though linguistically plausible in certain contexts, is often employed to negate the concept of headship altogether rather than to clarify it.

At the heart of the marital relationship is love and respect, both of which arise from mutual submission. If headship is stripped of accountability, one might infer that men are relieved of any obligation to submit to their wives, a conclusion that introduces significant theological and relational problems. The human inclination toward power and control undermines love and respect at their foundation. Submission, properly understood, is the necessary ground from which both virtues emerge. Without it, marriage cannot be sustained. Attempts to redefine key terms to resolve tension often obscure rather than illuminate the underlying issue. Where mutual submission is absent, the marital relationship is reduced to a contract, raising deeper questions about one’s capacity to submit to Christ.

This discussion should not be derailed by the broader controversy surrounding headship. In the book of Ephesians, the central emphasis remains clear: love and respect. God’s intention is a relationship marked by mutual self-sacrifice, in which each spouse is willing to set aside personal interests for the good of the other.

Scripture does not function as a procedural manual addressing every social development. Rather, it provides enduring principles governing how individuals are to relate to one another. In this respect, the Church has not always offered a sufficiently robust response to contemporary patterns of relational breakdown. Too often, pastoral engagement is brief and superficial. Yet the biblical witness consistently presents Christ as the cornerstone, with love and respect forming the basis of all relational life. The emphasis falls not on what one receives, but on how one serves. In light of the prevalence of marital dysfunction, this represents a sobering indictment.

What, then, does it mean for a wife to “respect” her husband? As previously noted, such respect is not necessarily instinctive. The verb phobeō, often translated “to revere” or “to hold in awe,” implies a posture of submission rather than a natural disposition. A wife may genuinely love her husband while communicating disrespect through her words or actions. The critical issue is not merely a wife’s intention, but whether the husband experiences those words and actions as respectful.

For a husband, the experience of respect is closely aligned with the experience of being loved. Do a wife’s words and actions convey reverence—do they affirm and build him up in his role within the marriage? Do they support his sense of responsibility as protector and provider? While such language may be dismissed as outdated or overly accommodating to perceived male fragility, it nevertheless addresses a significant relational dynamic: the desire to feel valued, needed, and respected. In this sense, acts of respect function as tangible expressions of submission, which in turn foster a sense of being loved.

Such expressions are not always easy. Choosing to act contrary to one’s immediate feelings—particularly amid miscommunication or emotional strain—requires intentionality and discipline. Inevitably, husbands and wives will at times desire different outcomes, and resolution may require one party to yield. However, scripture offers no clear mandate that, in cases of unresolved disagreement, the husband is entitled to make the final decision. It is precisely at this point that the Christian ethic is tested. The call is not to assert dominance, but to embody the self-emptying pattern of Christ, who “made himself nothing” in humble obedience (Phil 2:1–8).