[October 22, 2026] In our modern society, we hear talk that wives should never “submit to” their husbands; and that those who do are acquiescing to a form of “slavery.” The implication would be that wives are inherently subordinate or inferior to their husbands. That’s a modern, feminist exaggeration, and it misreads both biblical text and history alike.
Christianity isn’t alone in asking wives to submit to their husbands. Across a very wide range of cultures and historical periods, men have generally been expected to lead and women have generally oriented themselves toward that leadership.
This pattern appears naturally in hypergamy: the widespread tendency of women to prefer partners of higher social status, resources, or standing. Hypergamy is not identical to the biblical command, but they both point in the same direction: an ordered relationship in which the husband occupies the leading position.
That order is inseparable from the husband’s far heavier obligation. Scripture calls him to love his wife as Christ loved the church, to protect, provide for, and, if necessary, die for her and the family. The wife’s role is one of ordered, voluntary yielding; the husband’s is one of sacrificial leadership. This is not the obedience required of children, nor a general command that women submit to men as a class. It is a specific, mutual structure within marriage.
“Submit,” “be subject to,” or “be subordinate” are the standard and accepted English translations of the Greek verb used in the relevant passages of the Bible. At the same time, modern English has loaded “submit” with stronger connotations of coercion, inferiority, or mindless compliance than the original term carried.
In non-military contexts, the Greek word describes a voluntary act of placing oneself in an ordered relationship; cooperating, supporting, and yielding rather than being forced. The modern connotation is therefore more severe than the biblical sense.
This gap in meaning is where much feminist criticism goes astray. It treats the English word “submit” in its harshest contemporary sense, equates that sense with the biblical text, and largely ignores both the reciprocal demand placed on husbands and the voluntary character of the wife’s role. The more precise emphasis is voluntary self-arrangement and ordered cooperation within a marriage, not forced obedience or the erasure of the wife’s personhood.
Biblical or the historical subtext of submission isn’t slavery, and it doesn’t make women inferior. It is an ordered, reciprocal relationship, and one that has been widely reflected in human cultures and it makes sense once you read what the text actually says.
————
The specific Biblical reference is in Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV):
- 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
- 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
- 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
In the Greek middle or passive voice translation (the form used in Ephesians 5), it means to submit oneself, to yield, to arrange oneself under, or to cooperate within an ordered structure. Lexicons describe the usage in Ephesians 5:21 as “voluntary yielding in love.”
————
Please read my books:
Ouch, sir, you gonna get some wild responses to this post. In my initial reading, I thought you were saying that wives should “obey” their husbands (as in being ordered around is okay), but on later reading and thinking about it, I see you are actually critiquing feminism and the ideological spinoffs of that terrible ideology. Thank you, sir.
Yeah, Idiot Savant, i was thinking the same. Inject thumbs-up here1
Good points, Gen. Satterfield, but I couldn’t help smiling throughout the reading because there is great truth here.
This article’s defense of “wives submit” as some elegant voluntary arrangement is pure patriarchal gaslighting that dresses up hierarchy as mutual sacrifice while conveniently ignoring how those exact teachings have justified centuries of control, financial dependence, and domestic abuse under the banner of “order.” Calling modern critiques a “feminist exaggeration” is the oldest trick in the book; dismiss the demand for equality as hysteria so you can keep selling women the idea that their personhood is best expressed by arranging themselves under a man who gets to play Christ. Hypergamy and “historical patterns” are not moral justifications; they are descriptions of unequal power that feminism exists to dismantle, not romanticize as the natural order of things.
The article by General Satterfield makes a strong point that the English word “submit” today sounds much harsher than the original Greek idea of choosing to cooperate and support someone in an ordered way. It also correctly notes that the husband’s job is described as much harder, since he is told to love, protect, and even be willing to die for his wife the way Christ did for the church. Looking at history and the idea of hypergamy shows that many cultures have expected men to take the lead, so the biblical pattern is not as strange as some people claim. The argument works well when it stresses that this is only for marriage and is voluntary, not the same as children obeying parents or women being under all men. One place the article could go deeper is explaining more clearly how a wife can still have her own opinions and strengths while still arranging herself under her husband’s leadership. Overall, the piece does a clear job of showing that the teaching is about mutual order and sacrifice rather than one person being less important than the other.
Wow, Gen. Satterfield, you’re going to have a bunch of blue-haired feminists after you now. ;-))
Yep, and here we go………the WOKE crowd will be here soon.