When “Submit” Means Something Radically Different—Ephesians 5 and the Mutuality of Christian Marriage

The Verse Complementarians Skip—And Why It Changes Everything

If there’s one passage that seems to settle the debate in favor of male headship, it’s Ephesians 5:22-33.

“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.”

There it is, complementarians argue; clear biblical teaching on wifely submission and male authoritative headship.

Case closed.

Except... what if we’ve been reading this passage through the wrong lens entirely?

What if the most revolutionary statement in this text isn’t “wives, submit to your husbands,” but the verse that comes immediately before it?

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

What if Paul’s vision for Christian marriage isn’t hierarchy with a kind face, but mutual submission—a vision so radical, so subversive of ancient patriarchy, that we’ve spent two thousand years trying to domesticate it?

The Verse We Skip Over

Ephesians 5:21 is the hinge on which everything turns: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

The Greek is hypotassomenoi allēlois en phobō Christou—literally “submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.”

This is mutual submission. The word allēlois is a reciprocal pronoun meaning “one another” or “each other.” Paul isn’t saying “some of you submit to others.” He’s saying all Christians submit to all Christians, mutually, reciprocally. This doesn’t mean every relationship looks identical—mutual submission takes different forms in different contexts. But the posture is universal: considering others more significant than ourselves, deferring in love, seeking the other’s good above our own.

Here’s what’s crucial: In the Greek text, verse 21 isn’t a separate sentence. It’s a participle that connects directly to what comes before (being filled with the Spirit, 5:18) and leads into the household codes (5:22ff).

The grammar matters. Verses 22-33 don’t introduce a different principle. They apply mutual submission to the specific context of marriage. Many English translations obscure this by starting a new paragraph at verse 22, making it seem like a separate topic. But in Paul’s flow of thought, mutual submission is the controlling idea.

As I’ve written elsewhere, “This is the header under which all subsequent instructions unfold. Whatever follows must be read through the lens of mutual submission. The wife’s submission and the husband’s sacrificial love are not two separate callings—they are different applications of the same principle.” (One Calling, Two Expressions)

“Wives, Submit”—But Notice What’s Missing

Here’s something remarkable: In the best Greek manuscripts, Ephesians 5:22 doesn’t actually contain a verb.

The verse reads: Hai gynaikes tois idiois andrasin hōs tō kyriō—literally “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

There’s no verb. The verb “submit” must be supplied from verse 21. That’s why some translations put “submit” in italics or brackets. It’s carried over from the mutual submission command in verse 21.

This is grammatically significant. Paul isn’t giving wives a new, separate command to submit. He’s explaining how the mutual submission of verse 21 applies specifically to wives.

Compare how Paul addresses other groups:

• Children, obey (hypakouete) your parents (6:1)—direct command with its own verb

• Slaves, obey (hypakouete) your masters (6:5)—direct command with its own verb

• Wives, [submit from v.21] to your husbands—no new verb, borrowed from mutual submission

Paul uses different verbs deliberately. He commands children and slaves to “obey” (hypakouete, from the verb hypakouō), which implies unilateral obedience to authority. But for wives, he uses the language of mutual submission (hypotassō from v.21), which is something all Christians do for each other.

If Paul wanted to teach wifely obedience to male authority, he had the vocabulary. He didn’t use it.

The Head Metaphor: Authority or Source?

“But what about ‘the husband is the head of the wife’?” complementarians ask. “Doesn’t ‘head’ mean authority?”

Not necessarily. In fact, probably not; though this is genuinely disputed among scholars.

The Greek word kephalē rarely means “authority over” in ancient Greek literature. The primary meaning is the literal physical head. Metaphorically, it can mean “source,” “origin,” or “preeminence.” Complementarian scholars argue that kephalē can carry connotations of authority, while egalitarian scholars contend it points primarily to source and origin. What’s telling is that when Greek wanted to unambiguously express authority, it used words like archē (ruler), exousia (authority), or kyrios (lord, master). Paul knew these words. He didn’t use them here.

The assumption that “head” necessarily means “authority” comes largely from reading English idiom back into Greek. In English, we say “head of the company” to mean the person in charge. But ancient Greek didn’t typically use kephalē this way.

This reading is consistent with how Paul uses the head-body metaphor elsewhere (Ephesians 4:15-16), where the emphasis is on nourishment, unity, and growth—not control. As I’ve noted previously, “The husband, then, is not the ruler of the wife, but the one called to sustain and support, just as Christ does the Church. If Paul wanted to emphasize authority, he had far clearer Greek terms at his disposal. The absence of words like kyrios (lord) or archōn (ruler) is telling.”

Look at how Paul develops the metaphor: “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” (5:23).

Christ is the head of the church, his body. The head-body imagery isn’t about authority. It is about organic union, mutual dependence, and life-giving connection. The head needs the body as much as the body needs the head.

Paul continues: “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (5:28-30).

The head doesn’t rule the body in Paul’s metaphor. It nourishes it, cares for it, and is united to it in profound mutual dependence. This is the opposite of domination.

Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul writes that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” If “head” means “authority,” this creates multiple theological problems:

First, does the Father have authority over the Son in a way that subordinates the Son’s deity? Most orthodox Christians reject this as Arianism.

Second, if “head” establishes an authority chain, why does Paul say Christ is the head of “every man” but the husband is the head of “the wife”? If this is about authority structures, shouldn’t Christ be the head of every woman too? The asymmetry only makes sense if “head” isn’t primarily about authority but about source and relationship, i.e., Christ as the source of humanity, the husband and wife united as one flesh (source imagery from Genesis 2), and God as the eternal source of the Son.

Even if we grant that kephalē can sometimes carry connotations of authority, Paul’s development of the metaphor in context consistently emphasizes nourishment, unity, and self-giving love—not hierarchical control.

The Startling Command to Husbands

In the ancient world, husbands had absolute authority. The Roman paterfamilias had legal power over his wife, children, and slaves, including the power of life and death. Husbands didn’t need to be told they had authority. Everyone knew it.

What husbands needed to hear was something no one was telling them: Love your wives.

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25).

This is the longest section in Paul’s household code—nine verses to husbands (5:25-33) compared to three to wives (5:22-24). And the command isn’t “rule well” or “exercise authority wisely.” It’s love sacrificially.

How did Christ love the church? By dying for her. By giving himself up completely. By washing her, nourishing her, cherishing her, making her holy.

This is the model for husbands. Not authority. Sacrifice.

The husband’s charge is not one of control, but of cruciform love. Paul invokes Christ’s self-giving sacrifice, i.e., a love that does not dominate but dies. This is not about privilege, but burden. To love like Christ is to pour out oneself for the flourishing of another. It is an ethic that turns every notion of hierarchical privilege upside down.

In the Greco-Roman world, this was revolutionary. Husbands had power; they didn’t serve their wives; rather, wives served them. But Paul calls husbands to imitate Christ’s self-emptying love, to give themselves up for their wives as Christ did for the church.

If this is headship, it looks nothing like what complementarians claim. It looks like mutual service, radical self-giving, and the complete absence of self-interested authority.

Different Expressions, Same Calling

Why doesn’t Paul simply command both spouses identically—both to love sacrificially and submit mutually?

Because he’s speaking into a cultural world where wives were already expected to submit. The radical move wasn’t in that instruction, but in the elevation of the wife through the command to the husband. In essence, Paul tells the powerful party to surrender that power, not to maintain it.

In a world where wives were already expected to yield, Paul affirms that love takes the form of willing respect. For husbands, whose cultural norm was dominance, love must take the shape of costly self-sacrifice. But these aren’t gender-bound roles. They are timely expressions of the same gospel ethic.

The differences in instruction are not evidence of unequal roles or worth, but tailored expressions of the same gospel calling: to love self-sacrificially, in imitation of Christ. Paul’s vision here isn’t about who gets to lead and who has to follow. It’s about how Christ reshapes our relationships through humility and service. Both husband and wife are called to embody Christ—not in identical ways, but in equally demanding ones.

How Does the Church Submit to Christ?

Complementarians argue that wives must submit to husbands as the church submits to Christ—totally and absolutely.

But this reading misses the nature of the church’s submission to Christ.

How does the church submit? Voluntarily. Joyfully. Out of love and gratitude. In response to His self-giving sacrifice. Not because He dominates us, but because He died for us.

The church’s submission isn’t the submission of a slave to a master or a subject to a tyrant. It’s the glad response of the redeemed to the Redeemer.

And notice: Christ doesn’t demand submission. He wins it through love.

If husbands are to be like Christ, they don’t command submission; they inspire it through self-sacrificing love. The model is persuasion through love, not coercion through authority.

Moreover, the church isn’t passive. The church is Christ’s body, His fullness, the means by which He accomplishes His purposes (Ephesians 1:23). The church participates actively in Christ’s mission. This is partnership, not domination.

The Mystery: Two Becoming One

Paul ends with a stunning statement:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (5:31-32).

He quotes Genesis 2:24—the pre-fall marriage ideal, where there’s no hierarchy, only union.

What’s the mystery? That in marriage, two distinct persons become one without losing their identities. That union doesn’t require subordination. That oneness is achieved through mutual love, mutual submission, and mutual self-giving.

This is the opposite of hierarchy. It’s communion. Partnership. The mutual indwelling that reflects the Trinity itself.

What About “In Everything”?

Complementarians point to Ephesians 5:24: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

Doesn’t “in everything” mean total obedience?

No, for several reasons.

First, the parallel breaks down. The church submits to Christ in everything because Christ is Lord—divine, sinless, perfectly wise, wholly good. No human husband possesses these qualities. To submit to a husband “in everything” the way the church submits to Christ would be idolatry.

Second, Scripture elsewhere limits all human authority. Peter and the apostles declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). No human authority can override God’s authority or a person’s moral responsibility.

Third, “in everything” must be read in light of mutual submission (5:21) and the husband’s call to sacrificial love (5:25-33). If the husband is loving his wife as Christ loved the church, seeking her good above his own, then her submission “in everything” will never involve domination, because he isn’t exercising that kind of authority.

The Radical Symmetry

Here’s what’s truly revolutionary about Ephesians 5:22-33: Despite being written in a culture of absolute male dominance, it is structurally symmetrical.

Wives: Submit (from v.21) to your husbands as to the Lord.

Husbands: Love your wives as Christ loved the church.

Both are called to other-centered devotion. Both are given Christ as their model. Both are called to self-giving. Neither is told to pursue their own interests or assert their rights.

This is mutual submission applied to marriage. Not hierarchy. Not complementary roles where one commands and one obeys. Mutual self-giving love.

The fact that Paul uses different language for each doesn’t establish hierarchy. It reflects the different temptations each faced in that culture. Wives were tempted to despise husbands who had legal power over them. Husbands were tempted to use that power selfishly. Paul addresses both with the same underlying call: Christ-like, self-giving love.

What Changed? And What Remains?

“But if this is all mutual,” complementarians object, “why does Paul address wives and husbands separately?”

Because Paul is writing to real people in a real culture—first-century Roman society where husbands had absolute legal authority and wives had virtually none.

Paul couldn’t simply say “spouses, submit to each other” and expect that to be understood. That would have sounded like nonsense in a world where submission only went one direction.

So Paul uses the conventional household code form but radically subverts it:

• He frames it with mutual submission (5:21)

• He gives wives no verb of their own, linking them to mutual submission

• He tells husbands to love like Christ, not to rule like Roman lords

• He emphasizes union and partnership, not authority and obedience

This is contextual application of a radical principle. Paul is moving his readers from where they are (patriarchy) toward where the gospel is taking them (mutual partnership).

We see this trajectory throughout the New Testament. What began as “slaves, obey your masters” eventually led the church to recognize that slavery itself contradicts the gospel. Similarly, what began as “wives, submit to your husbands” in the context of ancient patriarchy leads us to recognize that gender hierarchy itself contradicts the new creation reality of Galatians 3:28.

In Christ, both husband and wife are called to self-giving love, mutual submission, and shared flourishing. The differences in language reflect context, not cosmic design.

Marriage as Icon of the Gospel

Paul says this marriage teaching is a “mystery” that refers to Christ and the church (5:32). What does Christian marriage reveal about the gospel?

Not that Christ rules the church through top-down authority. But that Christ and the church are united in a profound, mysterious, life-giving union.

Not that one partner has authority while the other obeys. But that two become one through mutual, self-giving love.

Not that hierarchy reflects divine order. But that sacrificial love, voluntary submission, and mutual partnership reflect the very life of God.

When marriages embody mutual submission—when husbands lay down their lives for their wives and wives honor and partner with their husbands, when both defer to each other in love, when neither pursues their own interests but the good of the other—this reveals the gospel.

This is what makes Christian marriage distinct. Not that we’ve perfected ancient patriarchy. But that we’ve begun living out the new creation reality where the curse is broken and the partnership of Eden is being restored.

When both partners embody Christ by dying to self and living for the other, the marriage becomes a living testimony of the gospel. Different expressions of the same calling, rooted in the same love, leading to mutual submission. This is the radical, redemptive beauty of Christian marriage: not who leads, but how both love.

The Vision We’re Called to Embody

Ephesians 5:21-33, read carefully in its original context and in light of the whole gospel, doesn’t establish male authoritative headship.

It establishes mutual submission as the pattern for all Christians, then applies it to marriage through a stunning call for husbands to love like Christ and wives to respect and honor their partners.

It uses the language of headship, not to convey authority, but to emphasize the organic union and mutual dependence of husband and wife.

It presents marriage as an icon of Christ and the church, not through hierarchy, but through self-giving love and profound unity.

And it sets the church on a trajectory from the patriarchy of the fallen world toward the mutual partnership of the new creation.

The question is: Will we follow that trajectory? Or will we freeze Paul’s contextual application in first-century Roman household codes and call it timeless truth?

Will we read Ephesians 5 as a baptism of patriarchy? Or as the beginning of its dismantling?

The gospel demands we choose. And the answer determines whether our marriages will reflect the curse or the kingdom.

Next in the series: “The Hard Texts: 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2, and the Gospel’s Trajectory”

For Additional Reading and Study

• Fee, Gordon D. “The Genre of Ephesians 5:18–6:9 and Its Place in the Argument of the Letter.” In Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, 155-168. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005.

• Payne, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

  • Thorough scholarly examination of all relevant Pauline texts, with extensive treatment of kephalē and mutual submission (see especially pp. 117-138).

• Pierce, Ronald W., and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, eds. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005.

  • Multi-author scholarly volume covering exegetical, theological, historical, and practical dimensions of biblical equality. Essential reference work.