Should Husbands Submit to Wives?

Dismantling Biblical Patriarchy's damaging misconceptions about submission and gender roles in marriage.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” The language here is a bit archaic. “Man” doesn’t mean men or males but mankind as a whole. What it means is that humanity’s intended purpose and ultimate goal is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

This concept is drawn directly from Scripture. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” Ecclesiastes 12:13 says, “… Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Romans 11:36 says, “From him and through him and to him are all things.” Psalm 73:25-26 concludes, “Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.”

So, imagine my dismay when I saw a pastor post the following statement on Facebook:

---

“The difference between a man and a woman is not grounded in the arbitrary assignment of differing roles. Rather, it’s based on something deeper and more profound - namely, the different natures they have by God’s creation design. In other words, it’s the nature of a man to provide responsible leadership in the home, the church, and society at large, and the nature of a woman to be in loving submission to her husband. In fact, that’s what sub-mission means: the woman is under (sub) the mission of her man, that she might help and support him in the assignment he has from God. This is biblical patriarchy.”

Paul Liberati
Pastor of Church of the King
Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC)
Sacramento, California

---

(For reference, Biblical Patriarchy is the name of a conservative movement to the right of Complementarianism commonly associated with influencers like Doug Wilson, R.C. Sproul Junior, and the Duggars. It is not necessarily biblical and opposing it is not a feminist flex).

Now, I agree with Liberati’s first sentence. Men and women are not defined by arbitrary roles or cultural expectations. I am not a man because I lift weights any more than my husband is a woman because he washes dishes. I am not a woman because I cook any more than my husband is a man because he grills. These kinds of stereotypes are frankly quite stupid, and only exacerbate the gender confusion running rampant through our culture.

We can make generalized observations about the differences between the sexes. For example, we can say, “Women tend to be nurturing and gentle.” But this does not mean that men are not nurturing or gentle, nor that all women are nurturing and gentle. Some women are narcissistic and abusive. We can say, “Men tend to be protectors and providers.” But this does not mean that women are incapable of protecting or providing, nor does it mean that all men fit these descriptors. In fact, we can probably all think of at least one man who has fallen drastically short in this regard.

It’s when our Biblical Patriarchy friend starts talking about the “nature” of men and women that his theology starts sliding off the rails. By the last two sentences, we realize he’s completely redefining words and claiming that his opinions are biblical with nary a source text or bible verse to back them up.

Here is my response to him, which I’ve expanded into an article with proof texts:

The chief end of women is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, just as it is for men. We do not have a “sub-mission” nor are we sub-Christians or sub-human. We are made in the image of God as equal members of Christ’s body just as men are.

This concept is taught clearly in the earliest chapters of Scripture. In Genesis 1:26-27 we read, “Let us make mankind in our own image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish … birds … livestock … wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.”

God did not say, “Let us make men to rule over the critters and the women.” He did not say, “Let us put the male people in charge and the female people under them.” Rather, he says that both shall rule together over his creation, and there is no implication of hierarchy or power structure between the genders.

The first hint of hierarchy we see in the Bible is actually in the Curse. In Genesis 3:16, after Adam and Eve rebelled against their Creator, God warned the woman, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Because this statement is literally part of the Curse, we can logically infer that it’s not God’s original design for marriage. Rather, it’s a side effect of the Fall and a consequence of sin. A husband’s “rule” is listed alongside other terrible things like pain, suffering, and death. Nobody with a lick of basic reading comprehension would think, “your husband … shall rule over you,” is a good thing in this context.

I have personally seen the “rule … desire” dynamic play out most horrifically in situations of domestic violence. A husband or boyfriend abuses and dominates his wife or girlfriend. She leaves him for a time out of fear or desperation, but later returns, because her desire - her emotional dependency - is for him. She loves in a way that is broken. Her deepest longings have turned self-destructive. In her heart, perhaps she can sense the man he could be if he would only choose what is good, and that’s the man she can’t let go of.

Essentially, God was warning Eve and women, “He will be domineering and controlling, but you will desire him anyway, and it will be awful.”

Right about now, a good student of Scripture might be thinking, “But Jennifer, husbands are supposed to be rulers in the home and a godly husband isn’t abusive. Ephesians 5:22 says, ‘Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.’”

And so it does.

But husbands are also to submit to wives. When we read the verse in context, we see that Paul is describing a model of mutual submission.

Ephesians 5:15-30 instructs that all believers are to be loving and thankful, “… submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (21). This command is given to all believers, husbands and men included. The Husbands and Wives header you may see in your Bibles is not in the original text but was added by the publisher. These verses flow together and must be interpreted in light of one another. Paul continues, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself … because we are members of [Christ’s] body.”

That phrase, “we are members” encompasses both men and women. Paul does not describe women or wives as sub-members with a sub-mission. He never commands men to “rule over” their wives. Instead, he tells them to treat their wives in the way that they themselves wish to be treated, and even as they would treat Jesus himself, explaining that women are members of Christ’s body. Are husbands called to “rule over” Jesus? Certainly not.

So, if submission does not mean “sub-mission,” what does it mean?

Paul describes it beautifully in Philippians 2:1-8, saying, “If there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Note how similar this exhortation is to Paul’s command to the Ephesians, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” It’s the same concept. It’s essentially the same sermon being preached to a different church. Christians - and specifically husbands - are to count their wives as more significant than themselves, to look to her interests, and take on the form of a servant. Wives also submit to their husbands, creating a symbiotic relationship in which each serves the other, loves sacrificially, and preaches Christ with their actions.

This does not mean that either of them are doormats, but that their behavior should remind us of Jesus, the Humble King. But male submission is not a novel concept in the New Testament and Paul did not invent it.

In Genesis 21:12, God tells Abraham, “Listen to whatever Sarah tells you.” This verse is beautifully ironic when we consider that, after Adam and Eve sinned, God told Adam, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife … cursed is the ground because of you.”

What does this mean then for submission? Are husbands to listen and heed their wive’s voices or not? I think what it means is that ultimately - whether we are male or female - we submit to God. This is why Paul says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” He does not mean that wives are to treat their husbands like gods, but rather that we submit when submitting is honorable to God.

Why was Abraham commanded to submit to Sarah? Because God had a plan to minister to Hagar, and bless her son with greatness and descendants. Why was Adam reprimanded for submitting to Eve? Because Eve was “deceived,” and her counsel conflicted with God’s command to Adam.

We submit to each other out of love for Jesus, so really, it’s Jesus we’re submitting to. If our spouse asks us to go to a Bible study with them, or attend a company Christmas party, we can submit knowing that this will honor God, build our relationship stronger, and support our spouse. If a woman’s husband is perverse and violent, she is not required by God to submit to his abuse because abuse is not of God.

Abigail is a good example of this. When her husband, Nabal, offended David, Abigail defied her husband’s authority. She went to David and called her husband a “worthless man” and a “fool.” David was so impressed by Abigail’s godliness, that when Nabal later died, David married her. Scripture describes Abigail as “intelligent” and “discerning.” It never shames or chides her for refusing to submit to her abusive husband.

By God’s definition, submission has nothing to do with a sub-mission. Our mission - whether we are male or female, young or old, single or married - is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Our behavior towards one another should emulate the compassion, humility, faithfulness, and courage of Jesus Christ. Power was not his ambition and he did not consider glory something to be grasped. Rather, he took the form of a servant.

This is Love.

A Few Anticipated Objections

Upon reading my reply, Liberati responded with verses from 1 Corinthians 11. It’s a popular passage with Biblical Patriarchists, and also with misogynistic and abusive men. Subsequently, these verses are particularly important to understand thoroughly and correctly. Here are a few wrongheaded takes I’ve seen in the past, and my responses to them:

1. “But the Husband is the Head of the Wife”

Some may contend, “But 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, ‘The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

However, this is covenantal language, not hierarchal language. God made a covenant with Adam before Eve was created and told him not to eat the forbidden fruit. Later, Eve was deceived by Satan, but Adam willfully sided with the Devil. Thus, the onus of the Fall fell heavier upon Adam as the Covenant Head. This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin girl and without a biological father. Had Joseph fathered Jesus biologically, Jesus would have been born under God’s Covenant with Adam and subjected to the Curse. He could not have been our Redeemer because he’d have inherited Adam’s sin nature. Jesus had to be the head of a New Covenant, free from the penalties of the Curse, and fulfill his role to perfection.

Besides the use of the covenantal term “head,” notice how Paul says, “the head of Christ is God.” As Christians, we believe that Jesus is God. So unless you contend that Jesus is not God, or is only part-God, or an unequal sub-person in the Trinity, you cannot logically contend that Paul is describing a hierarchy of power or authority here.

Rather, Paul is describing a pattern of covenantal relationship. God puts the onus on the husband to lead his family in a way that glorifies God. This entails following God’s instructions to the Ephesians and Philippians by being submissive, doing nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, counting others as more significant than himself, looking to the interests of his wife and children, and taking the form of a servant. The “head” in this context isn’t a domineering ruler, but the fulfiller of a covenant with grave responsibilities.

If you’re struggling to wrap your head around the idea of headship, consider that the American government is modeled in this way too. Our President is sometimes called the “head of state” or “head of government.” But he isn’t supposed to be a dictator or authoritarian. Rather, he is a “public servant” who is supposed to submit to the will of the people. This is a fallen human manifestation of headship, but the same general idea we see in the Bible.

2. “But Women were Created for Men.”

Another popular verse to quote out of context is 1 Corinthians 11:7. Paul says, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

This whole chapter talks a lot about covenant heads, and then proceeds in almost pun-like fashion to talk about hats and hairstyles on literal heads. I believe we’re straying into the realm of cultural context here.

Obviously, we don’t believe it’s sinful for men to wear hats, and few Christians hold to the idea that women must wear head-coverings. The traditional interpretation of this verse is that it contains insider references and cultural anecdotes Paul expects the Corinthians to understand, possibly because he’s alluding to a sermon he previously preached at their church, or some religious garb or fashion trend in Corinth at the time. As modern Christians, we’ve lost whatever context the Corinthians had, so we need to tread carefully in our interpretation.

The first thing I want us to notice is the phrase, “because of the angels.”

In Matthew 22:30, Jesus tells us that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” So, whatever Paul is talking about here, it’s unlikely to have anything to do with the marriage roles of husbands and wives, because angels don’t get married. I’ll bet they wear cool hats though!

The next phrase to consider is, “man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” In our fallen minds we may assume that if something is made for us, we therefor own it and are free to use it however we want. When we commission a painting, hire D.R. Horton to build a house, or order pizza from Papa John’s, we expect that painting, that house, or that pizza to be custom made to our specifications, for our use, and to do with it whatever we wish. Paul would never talk about women in this way, because it would contradict his own teachings plus a plethora of other Bible verses. Subsequently, the phrase, “woman was created for man” cannot mean that women were created for men to use, abuse, or own.

In fact, if we’d just keep reading a few verses further, Paul reminds us that men and women are equal before God, saying in verses 11-12, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”

This is why reading verses carefully and in context is so incredibly important. Paul is not describing a hierarchy here, but a symbiotic relationship and a natural system and order. He’s also referencing Genesis 2:18. In the beginning, God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Then he made Eve out of Adam’s rib, thus, “woman came from man …[and] … woman was created for man.”

But what does “helper” mean and how did Eve “help” Adam? What does it mean that she was created “for” him? In our fallen thought processes, we tend to think of “helpers” as “subordinates.” But that’s not what “helper” means in God’s vocabulary. In Isaiah 41:10, Psalm 54:4, and Hebrews 13:6, God refers to himself as the “helper” of his people. In John 14:26 Jesus calls the Holy Spirit, “The Helper … who the Father will send in my name.”

A helper then, in God’s definition, is not a subordinate. If anything, a helper is someone godly, honorable, and glorious who condescends to take on the role of a redeemer, protector, servant, and counselor. God created Eve as a helper so that her lineage could bring Adam’s ultimate Helper into the world. Eve was created for Adam because God knew Adam would need Jesus.

And this, my friends, should blow our minds.

If Eve had never been created, Adam still would have spoken with Satan. He still would have eaten the fruit, and he still would have rebelled against God. But then, Adam would have died alone in the wilderness without hope and without love. God knew this. And so God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” He made Adam a helper whose offspring would be our ultimate Helper.

God created Eve for Adam so that Jesus could save Adam and us all.

---

ABOUT JENNIFER GREENBERG: As the author of Not Forsaken and Defiant Joy, Jennifer has risen to become one of the foremost voices against child abuse in the church. She writes for Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition, and the Evangelical Council for Abuse Prevention. Jennifer also develops resources for Christian leaders and counselors to help them identify abusers, respond responsibly to crisis situations, and minister to abuse victims and survivors in a wise and loving manner. Besides her theological and ministerial work, Jennifer enjoys writing adult fantasy and science fiction novels, singing, and composing music. Jennifer and her husband, Jason, live in Texas with their three young children, a husky, and a cat. Find her at www.JenniferGreenberg.net and also on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

This article’s social media preview image is a photo by Ahmet Mert.