Christ and the Church: A Redemptive Vision for Marriage in Ephesians 5:21–33
How Paul’s Theology of Submission and Sacrificial Love Offers a Biblically Complementarian Model for Us Today
“This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” —Ephesians 5:32
Christian marriage is more than a social contract. According to the Apostle Paul, it is a living parable of redemptive love—a typological window into the mystery of Christ and the Church. In Ephesians 5:21–33 (ESV), Paul offers a Spirit-filled framework for marriage that transcends cultural constructs and calls both husbands and wives into cruciform discipleship. Grounded in Genesis 2:24, shaped by the ethic of mutual submission (hypotassomenoi), and modeled on the sacrificial love of Christ, Paul’s vision redefines authority, submission, and love within the home. This post, adapted from a recent exegetical submission, revisits the structure, theology, and practical implications of Ephesians 5:21–33 in a way that integrates exegetical precision with spiritual insight. Thus, it argues that Paul presents a Christ-centered model of mutual submission and complementary roles, subverting first-century patriarchy and offering a theological vision of unity and love grounded in the analogical relationship between Christ and the Church.
The Passage In Context
To start, Ephesians was written by the Apostle Paul during his Roman imprisonment (ca. AD 60-62) to a network of house churches in Ephesus, a prominent city in Asia Minor shaped by Greco-Roman values, imperial patronage, and the cult of Artemis (cf. Acts 19:21-41). Social life was structured by household codes (haustafeln) that emphasized strict hierarchical roles, with the paterfamilias exercising unchallenged authority over his household. In this environment, Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians 5:21–33 to Spirit-empowered mutual submission and sacrificial love stood as a radical reconfiguration of power and relationship.
Literarily, the epistle moves from theological exposition (chapters 1-3) to ethical instruction (chapters 4-6). Ephesians 5:21–33 initiates a household code section that extends through 6:9 and reflects the outworking of Spirit-filled living (5:18). Verse 21 (“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ”) functions as a thematic heading for the passage, reframing conventional social roles in light of the gospel. Paul’s focus on cruciform love and covenantal unity aligns the marriage relationship not with cultural norms, but with the redemptive relationship between Christ and His Church.
Mutual Submission as the Theological Anchor (Eph. 5:21)
Paul’s command in verse 21—“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (hypotassomenoi allēlois en phobō Christou)—functions grammatically as a continuation of the participles stemming from the imperative in 5:18 to be filled with the Spirit. This participle is not merely ethical but pneumatological: it marks the outflow of Spirit-empowered life. As Merkle notes, this mutual submission characterizes the spiritual maturity of those who are “filled with the Spirit,” manifesting itself in worship, thanksgiving, and relational humility.1
Importantly, this submission is not rooted in fear of man but in awe of Christ. It reorients relational dynamics not around control, but around cruciform deference. George Knight clarifies that mutual submission, while universal, does not dissolve role distinctions. Rather, it calls all believers into a posture of Christlike humility as the context for vocational responsibilities.2
Wives and the Church: Submission in the Lord (Eph. 5:22–24)
The structure of verses 22–24 continues Paul’s Spirit-led ethic. The Greek verb hypotassomenoi is often omitted from verse 22 in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting a syntactical ellipsis: the command to submit is inferred from verse 21. However, some textual variants include the imperative, supporting the interpretation that Paul begins a distinct exhortation here.3 Regardless of syntax, the theological continuity is clear: a wife’s submission to her husband is an expression of her submission to Christ.
Paul instructs wives to submit “to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (hōs tō Kyriō), indicating that this submission is ultimately Christward. It is neither coercive nor degrading, but covenantal and devotional. Gupta rightly argues that Paul’s rhetoric here does not reinforce Roman patriarchy but subverts it by redefining authority through Christ’s servant-hearted example.4
Paul then explains: “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church” (v. 23). The term kephalē (“head”) has generated significant scholarly debate, but within the context of Ephesians, it clearly implies Christlike responsibility rather than superiority (cf. 1:22; 4:15).5 Christ’s headship is salvific—He is “Savior” of the body—and thus the husband’s headship must mirror Christ’s redemptive posture.
Verse 24 reinforces the analogy: just as the Church submits to Christ, wives are to submit to their husbands “in everything” (en panti). As Bruce notes, this phrase must not be interpreted as a mandate for blind obedience. Rather, it speaks to a posture of holistic unity, where submission is rooted in trust, mutual discipleship, and reverence for the Lord.6
Husbands and Christ: The Cruciform Model of Love (Eph. 5:25–30)
In a culture where husbands were told to manage, Paul tells them to die. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). The verb *agapaō* does not denote mere affection but sacrificial, covenantal love. This command—to emulate the atoning love of Christ—is the highest moral summons in the text.
Paul anchors this love in sanctification. Christ’s goal in loving the Church was “to sanctify her…that he might present the church to himself in splendor” (vv. 26–27). This vision of love has an eschatological trajectory: husbands are to lead in a way that promotes their wives’ holiness and flourishing.7
The imagery then shifts. “He who loves his wife loves himself” (v. 28), because husband and wife are “one flesh” (cf. Gen 2:24). Paul presses this mystical unity by appealing to common sense: no one hates his own body, but “nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (vv. 29–30). The verbs ektrephei and thalpei connote tender care—feeding, sustaining, warming. Gupta notes that Paul’s portrayal of masculinity here is countercultural: attentive, emotionally engaged, spiritually responsible.8
One Flesh and the Gospel Mystery (Eph. 5:31–32)
Paul now transitions from instruction to revelation. By quoting Genesis 2:24—“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”—he grounds his teaching in the creational order. This verse serves as the theological linchpin of the entire passage. Marriage is not an ad hoc social arrangement but a divinely instituted covenant meant to signify something far greater.
The interpretive apex comes in verse 32: “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” The term mystērion in Paul’s usage does not refer to something unknowable, but to a divine truth once concealed and now revealed (cf. Eph 1:9; 3:3–6). Marriage, in its original design, was intended to point to the relationship between Christ and His Bride.9
Love and Respect: A Dual Summary (Eph. 5:33)
Paul concludes with a clear and memorable summary: “However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” This verse reiterates, in ethical terms, the theological truths of the preceding section. The imperatives—love and respect—serve not as reductionistic prescriptions, but as relational signposts that safeguard and uphold the mutual dignity and distinct roles of husband and wife.
Blomberg underscores that while both spouses need both love and respect, Paul’s asymmetrical emphasis here corresponds to their distinct callings—not due to inequality, but due to typological significance.10
Application: Embodying The Gospel
Ephesians 5 calls the Church to embody a redemptive and countercultural vision of marriage. Pastors must teach that mutual submission is not passive permissiveness, and headship is not license for dominance. As Beth Allison Barr warns, cultural patriarchy has often masqueraded as biblical fidelity.11 However right Barr may be in this area, it is worth offering a word of caution in digging too far into her conclusions throughout the rest of her investigation on Biblical Womanhood. Yet, taking into account the base-level meaning of the passage and the heart behind her writings, it is all too important to separate cultural subjectivity and biblical objectivity in this matter.
Submission must never be a justification for abuse. Leadership must never become entitlement. As such, Leaders today must “resist reinforcing cultural stereotypes under the guise of biblical fidelity,” instead upholding both the full equality and the God-ordained distinctions of husband and wife.12 Christlike love and reverent trust must define both partners. In this model, the home becomes a crucible of sanctification and a theater of gospel witness.
But what about those who are not married yet? How can this be applicable to them? This is where the mention of complementarianism comes into play; it is more about analogy than it is anatomy. Taking the principles, values, and heart found in Ephesians 5:21-33, each and every believer can demonstrate the love and respect Paul exhorts. Because Paul has explained that each member of the marriage relationship has a part to play attached to their respective God-ordained gender, the same message of mutual submission applies. Men and women were created with equal dignity and value, existing on a level playing field in God’s economy. Within this equality also exists a unique role that each has been designed to fill.
Yet, modern Christians13 have twisted and distorted the concept of complementary roles in God’s design to embody the aforementioned abusive tendencies. A healthy, holy, and holistic complementarian view means affirming that men and women were created uniquely, while also denouncing harm to either sex. Each has been created to fulfill a purpose and role that the other cannot physically or divinely do. This directly analogizes the necessity of the Savior, doing what humanity could not do by taking once-for-all punishment upon the cross. This diversity should lead to joy rather than jealousy, harmony rather than havoc, and grace rather than gloating.
Conclusion: A High and Holy Calling
Ephesians 5:21–33 calls the Church to a vision of marriage that is both theologically rich and spiritually transformative. It is not merely a set of moral instructions or social conventions, but a portrait of divine love incarnated in covenantal fidelity. By rooting marital roles in the gospel itself—Christ’s sacrificial love and the Church’s reverent response—Paul reframes marriage not as a battleground of wills, but as a sacred stage for grace.
This vision dismantles both ancient patriarchy and modern individualism. It affirms that men and women are created equal in dignity, distinct in role, and united in purpose. It insists that submission and headship, far from being tools of domination, are postures of worship when shaped by the cross. It reminds us that marriage is not an end in itself, but a means of displaying Christ’s love for His Bride.
For those who are married, this passage offers a blueprint for intimacy marked by humility, service, and mutual sanctification. For those who are single, widowed, or divorced, it provides a paradigm of Christlike living and relational honor that transcends marital status. For the Church at large, it stands as a corrective to both chauvinistic distortions and egalitarian reductions of biblical teaching.
In the end, Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5 does not call us to preserve traditional structures for their own sake—it calls us to embody gospel truth in every sphere of life, beginning at home. Marriage, when rightly lived, becomes a witness: to our children, our churches, and our culture. It proclaims that the Redeemer who gave Himself for His people continues to form them through love, respect, and the Spirit’s power.
This is the mystery made visible. This is theology in motion. This is Christ and the Church—lived out in covenant, in community, and in grace.
Benjamin L. Merkle, “Ephesians,” in Ephesians–Philemon, ed. Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton Jr., and Jay Sklar, vol. XI, ESV Expository Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 29.
George W. Knight III, “Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church: Ephesians 5:21–33 and Colossians 3:18–19,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 165–78.
Peter Gurry, “A Textual, Lexical, and Ethical Challenge to the ‘Principle of Reciprocity’: A Response to Lynn H. Cohick, ‘Loving and Submitting to One Another in Marriage,’” Eikon 5, no. 1 (Spring 23): 40-45.
Nijay K. Gupta, Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023), 137.
Craig L. Blomberg, “Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and James R. Beck, Revised Edition, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 2005), 130.
F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 394.
Merkle, Ephesians, 102.
Gupta, Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church, 137.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 344.
Blomberg, “Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective,” 135.
Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2021), 197–200.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 1237.
The term “modern” correlates to a meaning focusing on recency rather than objective time. The idea of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism was most prevalent in the early 1900’s alongside the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy that played out heavily in the Southern Baptist Convention.