"Wives, Submit": How Adventist Writers Read Ephesians 5 on Marriage

1. Issue framed

Ephesians 5:22 is one of the best-known lines about marriage in the Bible: "Wives, submit to your own husbands" (NKJV). Many readers stumble over it. Does it place wives under their husbands' authority? Or does it describe one side of a love in which both partners give way to each other?

The question came up again on November 6, 2026. That day, the Adventist Review published a marriage column by Willie and Elaine Oliver, "The Real Meaning of Biblical Submission." A married reader wrote in asking how the passage should apply today. This examination compares the Olivers' answer with two earlier Adventist readings of the same verses.

The question here is about marriage. Church leadership is a separate question, covered in an earlier examination.

2. Documented positions in view

Mutual submission, with headship as stewardship. The Olivers argue that verse 22 cannot be read "as if it stands on its own." Verse 21 frames it. For them, headship is "a matter of stewardship rather than a throne." They write that "biblical submission is not silence, and biblical headship is not control."

Mutual submission, without a ruling role for husbands. Ron Hessel, a pastor in the Upper Columbia Conference, wrote "Ephesians 5:22 Doesn't Say That Women Must Submit to Men!" in Adventist Today (April 4, 2023). It is labelled commentary. Hessel argues that the passage calls husbands to a self-sacrificing role: "not the head, but the servant." He sees "no evidence" that husbands may "claim any right of leadership over our wives."

Loving male headship. Samuele Bacchiocchi wrote "The Church and the Family" for Adventists Affirm. The byline gives his role at the time as professor of theology and church history at Andrews University. The site gives no date, but the article cites a source from spring 1987. He writes that "man is called to exercise a loving, sacrificial headship in the home and in the church." Woman, he says, "is called to willingly accept the caring headship of man in the home and in the church." He insists that "male headship relates to function, not to value."

All three are individual writings. None is a voted statement.

3. Scriptural arguments attributed and compared

Where the passage begins. The Olivers and Hessel both start with verse 21. The Olivers quote it as "Submitting to one another in the fear of God" (NKJV). Hessel quotes it as "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (NIV). Both treat it as the heading for what follows.

Hessel adds a point about the original wording. In the Greek wording Hessel discusses, verse 22 has no verb of its own; "submit" comes from verse 21. He concludes that wives' submission is one example of the mutual submission Paul has just commanded. Bacchiocchi's article does not discuss verse 21.

"As to the Lord." All three writers stress this phrase. For Bacchiocchi, it shows that a wife accepts her husband's headship "for the sake of Christ," not because of custom. The Olivers cite Ellen White's reading of "as it is fit in the Lord." For them, the phrase limits submission: it is "constrained by Christ's character, not by a husband's preferences or moods."

What "head" means. Verse 23 says the husband is head of the wife "as Christ is the head of the church" (NIV). All three writers tie that to verse 25, where husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her.

They draw different conclusions from it:

• Bacchiocchi says Christ is "both the Head and Servant of the church," so a husband exercises both roles.
• The Olivers call headship "cross-shaped" stewardship.
• Hessel reads Christ's example as turning headship into servanthood.

Creation. Bacchiocchi grounds role differences in the order of creation. He cites 1 Timothy 2:13: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." The Olivers quote Ellen White, "In the creation, God had made her the equal of Adam." They conclude that headship "cannot mean superiority of value or intellect." Bacchiocchi would agree about value but still keep a difference in role.

4. Historical and teaching context

The church's voted Fundamental Belief 23, "Marriage and the Family," cites Ephesians 5:21–33. It says that "mutual love, honor, respect, and responsibility are the fabric of this relationship." It describes marriage as reflecting "the relationship between Christ and His church." It does not define headship or submission. The three writers are interpreting within that space.

The Olivers draw on Ellen White's book The Adventist Home. They quote her saying that husbands who demand "complete subjection" place their wives "in a position contrary to the Scripture." They also bring in modern marriage research.

Bacchiocchi's undated article discusses women serving as elders and links the home to the church. This examination looks only at his view of the home.

5. Agreements and disagreements

Agreement. All three writers reject harsh control of wives. All three read verse 22 in the light of Christ's self-giving love in verse 25. All three say a wife's worth equals her husband's.

Disagreement. The Olivers and Bacchiocchi both keep some form of husbandly headship, though they describe it differently. Hessel rejects any right of leadership for husbands. They also differ on how much weight verse 21 carries: for Hessel and the Olivers it governs the whole passage, while Bacchiocchi's argument does not rely on it.

6. Implications and uncertainties

These readings shape real homes. They affect how couples make decisions and how pastors counsel. They also affect how a church responds when "submission" is used to excuse mistreatment. All three writers rule that out.

Readers will still have to weigh some open questions. How much does verse 21 govern verse 22? Does "head" mean leadership, servanthood, or both? How far does 1 Timothy 2:13 apply to marriage, rather than to worship?

7. Limits — no doctrinal ruling

This piece compares three Adventist writers on a few verses. It is not a complete study of Ephesians 5, and it does not speak for the church.

This examination issues no final doctrinal ruling.