The New Testament contains multiple explicit commands for wives to submit to their husbands. These passages appear in letters attributed to Paul and Peter, forming part of what scholars call "household codes"—sections of instruction governing relationships within the ancient household.1 The commands use language of authority, subjection, and hierarchy, not mutual deference. Whatever modern interpreters may wish these texts to mean, the plain reading presents a clear hierarchical relationship between husbands and wives.
The Ephesians passage
The most extensive treatment of wifely submission appears in Ephesians 5:22-24, part of a larger section on Christian household relationships:
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Ephesians 5:22-24 (English Standard Version)2
The Greek verb translated "submit" is "hupotasso" (ὑποτάσσω), a compound of "hupo" (under) and "tasso" (to arrange or order).3 The word carries connotations of military order and hierarchy, meaning "to place under," "to subordinate," or "to subject oneself to."3 It is the same word used when the New Testament describes demons submitting to disciples, citizens submitting to governing authorities, and creation being subjected to futility.4 The term inherently implies a hierarchical relationship between the one submitting and the one being submitted to.
The passage provides theological grounding for this command by comparing the husband-wife relationship to the Christ-church relationship. Just as Christ is the "head" (kephale) of the church, the husband is the head of the wife.2 The comparison is explicit and detailed: "as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."2 The phrase "in everything" (en panti) is comprehensive, not limited to certain domains of life.5
Some interpreters point to verse 21, which precedes this passage: "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ."6 They argue this establishes mutual submission as the framework. However, the subsequent verses do not command mutual submission between husbands and wives but give distinct, asymmetrical instructions: wives are commanded to submit, while husbands are commanded to love.7 The text does not say husbands should submit to wives or that submission flows in both directions within marriage. The command to wives is one-directional submission to their husbands' headship.
The Colossians passage
A parallel passage appears in Colossians 3:18-19, using similar language:
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:18-19 (English Standard Version)8
Here again the verb is "hupotasso," and the command is directed specifically to wives.8 The phrase "as is fitting in the Lord" (hos aneken en kurio) presents this submission not as cultural custom but as appropriate Christian conduct ordained by the Lord.9 The parallel instruction to husbands is to love their wives and not be harsh, but not to submit. The asymmetry is built into the structure of the passage.
The 1 Peter passage
The longest single treatment of wifely submission appears in 1 Peter 3:1-6:
"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening." 1 Peter 3:1-6 (English Standard Version)10
This passage uses "hupotasso" again, but adds significant detail about the nature and scope of this submission.10 Wives are to submit even to husbands who "do not obey the word," that is, non-Christian husbands.11 The submission is not conditional on the husband's Christian faith or moral conduct. It is presented as a form of evangelism: the wife's submissive and pure conduct may win her unbelieving husband to Christ.11
The passage holds up Sarah as the model, noting that she "obeyed Abraham, calling him lord."10 The Greek word translated "obeyed" is "hupakouo" (ὑπακούω), meaning "to listen under" or "to obey as a subordinate."12 The word translated "lord" is "kurios" (κύριος), the same word used for God and Christ throughout the New Testament.12 While the passage does not require wives to literally call their husbands "lord," it presents Sarah's attitude of obedience and deference as exemplary for Christian wives.13
The passage also describes the ideal demeanor for wives: "a gentle and quiet spirit" (pneuma to praus kai hesuchion).10 This phrase has been the subject of extensive interpretation, but the plain sense is that godly wives should cultivate an attitude of meekness and tranquility rather than assertiveness or contentiousness.14 This spirit is described as "very precious" in God's sight, suggesting divine approval of female submissiveness.10
The Titus passage
A briefer command appears in the Pastoral Epistles, in Titus 2:3-5:
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled." Titus 2:3-5 (English Standard Version)15
Here the word translated "submissive" is again "hupotasso."15 The passage places submission alongside other virtues young wives should be taught: loving their husbands and children, being self-controlled and pure, and "working at home" (oikourgous, literally "home-workers").16 The rationale given is theological: such conduct prevents the word of God from being "reviled" or blasphemed.15 Wifely submission is presented as part of Christian testimony, such that failure to submit brings reproach on God's word.
The household code pattern
These passages belong to a literary form common in Greco-Roman moral philosophy known as household codes (German: Haustafel).1 Ancient household codes typically addressed three pairs of relationships: husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.17 Aristotle's Politics included such a code, as did the writings of Stoic philosophers like Seneca and Epictetus.17
The New Testament household codes in Ephesians 5:22–6:9, Colossians 3:18–4:1, and 1 Peter 2:18–3:7 follow this pattern, addressing the same three relationships.18 Some scholars argue that these passages simply reflect the cultural norms of the first-century Mediterranean world, where patriarchal household structure was universal and unquestioned.19 On this reading, the New Testament authors were accommodating Christian ethics to existing social structures rather than claiming divine sanction for hierarchy.
However, the texts themselves do not present these commands as cultural accommodation. They provide theological rationales rooted in God's nature and action: the husband is head as Christ is head, submission is "fitting in the Lord," and the ideal is grounded in the example of "holy women who hoped in God."2, 8, 10 The appeals are not to social convention but to divine order.
New Testament commands for wifely submission2, 8, 10, 15
| Passage | Greek verb | Scope | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ephesians 5:22-24 | hupotasso | "in everything" | Husband is head as Christ is head of church |
| Colossians 3:18 | hupotasso | General | "fitting in the Lord" |
| 1 Peter 3:1-6 | hupotasso | Even to unbelieving husbands | Example of holy women; evangelistic witness |
| Titus 2:5 | hupotasso | General | That God's word not be reviled |
The concept of headship
Central to the Ephesians passage is the claim that "the husband is the head of the wife" (ho aner estin kephale tes gunaikos).2 The meaning of "kephale" (κεφαλή) has been extensively debated. The word's basic meaning is "head" in the anatomical sense, but it is used metaphorically in Greek literature.20
Some egalitarian interpreters argue that "kephale" in this context means "source" rather than "authority," suggesting the husband is the source or origin of the wife (as in the Genesis 2 creation narrative where Eve comes from Adam's rib) but not necessarily her ruler.21 However, lexical studies of "kephale" in ancient Greek literature find that while "source" is a possible meaning in some contexts, "authority" or "leader" is far more common when the term is used metaphorically of persons.20
The context of Ephesians 5 strongly supports the "authority" meaning. The passage explicitly compares the husband's headship to Christ's headship over the church, and Christ's relationship to the church is one of authority, not merely origin.2 Christ is described as the head who is "himself its Savior," and the church's response is submission.2 The parallel indicates that just as the church submits to Christ's authority, wives should submit to their husbands' authority.
Moreover, 1 Corinthians 11:3 presents a hierarchy: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."22 This chain clearly represents hierarchical relationships, as evidenced by the claim that "the head of Christ is God," which few interpreters would understand as merely "God is the source of Christ" divorced from authority.23
Complementarian interpretation
Conservative evangelical interpreters, particularly those in the complementarian tradition, take these passages as establishing gender-based role differentiation that is both permanent and divinely ordained.24 The Danvers Statement, issued by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1988, affirms that "some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men" and that "in the family... a husband should lead his family with diligence and love, and a wife should submit to that leadership."25
Complementarians distinguish between equality of worth and differentiation of role. On this view, men and women are equal in dignity, value, and standing before God, but God has assigned different roles and responsibilities to each sex.24 The husband's headship and the wife's submission are not based on greater male competence or worth but on God's created design for marriage.26
Complementarians often emphasize that biblical submission does not mean wives have no voice, should tolerate abuse, or must obey sinful commands.27 Rather, it means the husband bears final responsibility for family decisions and the wife willingly defers to his leadership in contested matters.27 The husband's corresponding duty to love his wife "as Christ loved the church" is presented as a self-sacrificial call that tempers and limits his authority.2
However, the texts themselves do not include these qualifications. Ephesians 5:24 says wives should submit "in everything," with no textual exceptions for abuse or ungodly commands.2 The husband's call to love, while real, is given as a separate command to husbands, not as a limitation on the wife's obligation to submit.7 The submission command stands on its own.
Egalitarian interpretation
Egalitarian interpreters argue that these passages must be understood in their cultural context and that the underlying principles of Galatians 3:28—"there is neither... male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"—should govern Christian relationships.28 On this reading, Paul and Peter were working within the constraints of a patriarchal society but were subtly undermining hierarchy by emphasizing mutual obligation and dignifying women's roles.29
Egalitarians point to several mitigating factors in the texts. Ephesians 5:21 commands mutual submission "to one another," which some read as the interpretive key to the following verses.30 The passage addresses wives directly rather than addressing only husbands (as pagan household codes did), implying wives are moral agents with responsibilities, not mere property.29 The command for husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church" sets an extraordinarily high standard that, if followed, would transform patriarchal marriage into something more mutual.31
Some egalitarians argue that Paul was advocating gradual social change rather than immediate revolution, urging Christians to live countercultural lives within existing structures while planting seeds that would eventually undermine those structures.32 The fact that Paul elsewhere commends women like Phoebe as "deacon" (diakonos) and Junia as "outstanding among the apostles" suggests he did not view women as inherently subordinate in all contexts.33
However, this interpretive strategy faces challenges. The texts do not say "submit to one another in the same way wives submit to husbands"; they give asymmetrical commands to each party.7 The theological rationales appeal to creation order and Christ's relationship to the church, not to temporary cultural accommodation.2 And while Paul may have commended women in ministry roles, the passages on marriage are explicit and unqualified in their language of wifely submission.
Cultural context
The Greco-Roman world in which the New Testament was written was deeply patriarchal. Roman law gave the paterfamilias (male head of household) extensive authority over all household members, including the power of life and death over children and slaves.34 Wives in Roman society were under the legal authority (manus or potestas) of their husbands or fathers.35
Jewish culture was similarly patriarchal. Rabbinic tradition included a prayer in which men thanked God for not making them Gentiles, slaves, or women.36 Women were generally excluded from public religious education, could not serve as witnesses in court, and were under the authority of fathers or husbands throughout their lives.37 The Mishnah states, "A woman is acquired in three ways... by money, by deed, or by intercourse," using commercial language for marriage.38
Given this context, some interpreters argue that the New Testament household codes were actually progressive for their time because they addressed wives as moral agents and commanded husbands to love rather than simply to rule.29 In pagan household codes, instructions were typically given to the male head of household about how to manage his wife, children, and slaves. By contrast, New Testament codes address each party directly, implying personal responsibility before God.39
Others counter that the cultural context, while relevant for understanding the texts, does not necessarily determine their normative force for later readers. The question is not whether the commands were progressive in the first century but whether they are presented as culturally contingent advice or as enduring divine commands.40 The appeals to creation, to Christ's headship, and to God's approval suggest the latter.
Old Testament background
The New Testament commands for wifely submission build on Old Testament precedents, though the Old Testament's treatment of marriage is more prescriptive than imperative. Genesis 3:16, as part of the curse on Eve after the Fall, states: "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."41 The Hebrew verb "mashal" (מָשַׁל) means "to rule" or "to have dominion," the same word used for governing nations.42
Interpreters disagree on whether Genesis 3:16 is descriptive (predicting conflict) or prescriptive (commanding hierarchy). The context suggests it is part of the curse resulting from sin, not part of God's original design in Genesis 1-2, where Adam and Eve are created together in God's image and given joint dominion over creation.43 However, some complementarians argue that male headship was present even before the Fall, pointing to Adam being created first and Eve being created as a "helper" (ezer).44
The Old Testament includes various marriage laws and narratives that assume patriarchal structures. Wives could be acquired by purchase (bride price), captured in war, or taken as concubines.45 Fathers arranged marriages for daughters, and husbands could divorce wives (but not vice versa) by simply giving a certificate of divorce.46 Yet the Old Testament also includes powerful women like Deborah (a judge), Huldah (a prophet), and Esther (who saved her people), suggesting that patriarchal norms were not absolute or without exception.47
What Jesus said
Notably, Jesus himself is not recorded as explicitly commanding wifely submission. His teachings on marriage focus on permanence and mutual obligation. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus quotes Genesis: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"48 This passage emphasizes unity and indissoluble union, not hierarchy or submission.
Jesus's interaction with women was countercultural for his time. He taught women disciples (Luke 10:38-42), conversed with the Samaritan woman at the well despite social taboos (John 4), defended the woman caught in adultery (John 8), and appeared first to women after his resurrection (John 20).49 Some egalitarians argue that Jesus's treatment of women as full participants in his ministry provides the proper interpretive lens for understanding later apostolic instructions.50
However, Jesus also did not explicitly abolish patriarchal structures or command role equality in marriage. The argument from Jesus's silence cuts both ways: he did not command submission, but neither did he forbid it. What weight to give Jesus's example versus Paul's explicit commands remains a point of interpretive disagreement.
Theological and practical implications
The commands for wifely submission raise significant questions for modern readers. In contemporary Western societies, where legal equality between the sexes is established and women participate fully in education, employment, politics, and public life, gender-based hierarchical marriage stands in tension with broader social norms.51
Survey data from evangelical Christians show divided views. A 2017 Pew Research survey found that 59% of white evangelical Protestants believe society is better off if children have a mother at home and a father in the workplace, compared to 34% of the general population.52 However, actual practice often differs from stated ideals, with many evangelical wives working outside the home and participating in family decision-making.53
Views on traditional gender roles (2017)52
Critics of complementarian teaching argue that hierarchical marriage contributes to domestic abuse by establishing authority structures that can be exploited by abusive husbands.54 Research on domestic violence in religious communities has found that abusers sometimes cite biblical submission passages to justify controlling behavior and that victims may be counseled to submit rather than to seek safety.55 Complementarian leaders typically respond that abuse is sin and that biblical submission never requires tolerating violence, but critics note that the texts themselves do not include such qualifications.56
Others argue that the submission commands reflect ancient patriarchal culture rather than timeless truth, and that just as Christians no longer practice slavery despite New Testament household codes commanding slaves to obey masters, contemporary Christians should not enforce gender hierarchy in marriage.57 The question becomes one of interpretive authority: which elements of the New Testament are culturally conditioned and which are permanently binding?
What the text says
Whatever one's interpretive approach, the New Testament texts on wifely submission are explicit and repeated. Ephesians commands wives to submit to husbands "in everything," comparing this to the church's submission to Christ.2 Colossians commands submission as "fitting in the Lord."8 First Peter commands submission even to unbelieving husbands, holding up Sarah's obedience to Abraham as the model.10 Titus includes submission among the virtues older women should teach younger women.15
These passages use the language of subordination, hierarchy, and authority. The Greek verb "hupotasso" means to place under or subject oneself to another. The theological rationales appeal to creation order, Christ's headship, and divine approval. The commands are not mutual but asymmetrical: wives submit, husbands lead.
Readers may interpret these passages as culturally conditioned, as expressing an ideal that has been progressively realized through the church's growing understanding, or as permanently normative commands. But the claim that the New Testament does not teach wifely submission, or that it teaches only mutual submission without hierarchy, cannot be sustained from the plain reading of the texts. The Bible does command wives to submit to their husbands. What contemporary Christians do with that command is a question of interpretation, authority, and application—but the presence of the command itself is clear.