Male headship part 2: In the family

Scripture tells us that God’s original plan was for husband and wife to “become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This ideal, however, was marred by sin, resulting in a rupture of the “one flesh” relationship between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 3, when God questions them about what they have done, Adam and Eve respond with defensiveness and blame, showing evidence of the rift that occurred between man and woman because of their sin. God then pronounces judgements, including telling Eve that her husband will “rule over” her (Genesis 3:16). Old Testament scholars view this judgement of God in a variety of ways, ranging from permanent prescription, ie, that God prescribed hierarchy in marriage for the purpose of maintaining harmony, to predictive description, ie, that God described the hierarchy that would exist between men and women because of sin. Most scholars, however, agree that one “ruling over” the other was not God’s original plan for the relationship between men and women.¹

Whether we view this judgement of God as prescriptive or descriptive, human history has given evidence to the consequences of sin on the relationships between men and women—from ancient times to the modern era, men have tended to dominate and control, while women have tended to be subjugated and denied legal rights, including access to education, employment, inheritance and the owning of property. The women’s suffrage movement of the 19th century and the broader feminist movements of the 20th century challenged these hierarchical structures, striving for greater gender equality; however, as these movements reshaped traditional gender roles, some men in the 21st century have begun to feel disenfranchised, particularly as the rise of automation and globalisation have disproportionately affected male-dominated industries.² At the same time, girls outperform boys in learning outcomes and tertiary education enrolment.³ As a result, the 21st century has seen the rise of men’s rights and anti-feminist movements, which have impacted Christian perspectives on men and women, including a rise in vocal proponents of male headship within our own denomination. So how should Adventist Christians think about relationships between men and women, and more specifically, male headship in the family?

When considering this question, it’s important to acknowledge that we all bring our own unconscious biases to every passage of Scripture. This means that we read Scripture through the lens of our experiences in the world. For example, most of us in the 21st century read the words, “Slaves, obey your masters with respect and fear”, and recognise that Paul was speaking within a certain context, rather than that he supported slavery. Why is this? It’s because of our experiences in the world. For most of us, our education has included history classes, books and films that have helped us see the abhorrence of slavery. As a result, we interpret the passages of Scripture that mention slavery through the lens of our experiences, and most of us would not argue that Scripture supports slavery.⁴ 

In a similar way, our experiences in the world shape the way we read the passages of Scripture that relate to gender. Take, for example, Ephesians 5:22-24, which in traditional Christian cultures and communities is used as the quintessential text to support male headship in the family:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Our experiences, particularly in our family of origin, shape the way we view this passage. If, for example, we grew up in a hierarchical family where our father led in a way that was generally loving and respectful, we may assume that hierarchy within marriage is God’s ideal for relationships. However, it’s possible that we grew up in a family where our father enforced his will abusively. While many factors contribute to the abuse of women, including past trauma, poverty and alcohol, research shows that the main driver of domestic violence and abuse is the belief that men should make all the important decisions and women should submit.⁵ If we grew up in an abusive home, our experience shapes the way we view male headship in the family. For example, daughters may reject the notion of submission altogether, whereas sons who grow up in abusive homes are more likely than other men to abuse their own partners.⁶

Or consider another family dynamic. We may have grown up in a family where our father’s temperament was not suited to leading the family, but our mother’s temperament was. If our parents’ relationship was harmonious and our mother did not shame our father for his lack of leadership, our experience of this may have been positive. In contrast, if our mother was overbearing and we saw our father as weak, our desire may be for something very different in our own marriage.

Given the many ways our family experiences shape the way we view the passages of Scripture that relate to gender, how can we be more objective in our reading of Scripture, particularly passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24, which appear to support male headship in the family?

First, our presuppositions or biases are often subconscious, so it’s important that we acknowledge and interrogate our experiences and the way they have shaped us. Ask yourself: How does my parents’ relationship shape the way I view marriage? How does my own experience with the opposite gender shape my understanding of male/female relationships? And how do these experiences shape the way I read Scripture? Is it possible that I’m reading this passage through the lens of my experience? 

Second, it’s important that we read Scripture in its historical context. Thus, when reading Ephesians 5:22-24, ask yourself: What was the understanding of gender relationships at the time this passage was written? What were the social hierarchies that first-century Christians needed to abide by? We know that slavery was socially accepted in the first century AD and that Paul does not speak against it. We also know that the submission of women was the norm in ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish societies. Paul, however, encourages Christian women to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord”—a radical concept that implies voluntary submission. Further, Paul addresses these words to women rather than to men, which is revolutionary in the context of the first century AD, as it indicates that Christian men were not to assert their authority over their wives, because a Christian wife’s primary allegiance was to the Lord.

Third, it’s important that we read Scripture in its literary context. Thus, when reading Ephesians 5:22-24, ask yourself: What are the verses that come before this passage? What are the verses that come after it? How might the broader context shape the way I should read these verses? For example, directly before this passage (v21) are the words, “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”; and directly after this passage (v25) are the words, “Husbands, love (agape) your wives, as Christ loved (agape) the church and gave himself up for her.” Furthermore, these words, “gave himself up,” are also used in verses 1 and 2, where Paul urges Christians to love as Christ loved and “gave himself up”. In other words, when we read Ephesians 5:22-24 in its literary context, we see that Paul is encouraging wives to voluntarily submit to their husbands in the context of (i) the love that should characterise all Christian relationships; (ii) the mutual submission that should exist between husbands and wives; and (iii) the sacrificial love of their husbands. Once again, Paul’s vision for Christian relationships between men and women was revolutionary in the context of the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish families.⁷

And fourth, it’s important that we read Ephesians 5:22-24 in its whole of Scripture context. Ask yourself: How does this passage align with everything else I read in Scripture? How does it fit with what else I know about gender relationships? For example, as outlined above, we know that God’s ideal plan for the relationship between men and women was unity and equality (Genesis 1,2). We also know that God’s ideal was broken by sin, changing the relationship between men and women (Genesis 3). Within this Genesis 1-3 context, ask yourself: Is God’s judgement that man will “rule over” woman prescribing hierarchy within marriage? Or is it describing the consequences of sin? 

We believe that the evidence points to this being a description of the consequences of sin.⁸ However, it’s important that we broaden the whole of Scripture context beyond Genesis 1-3. We know that the whole of Scripture is a story of divine grace; of God’s promise that, through His justifying grace, He will atone for what was broken by sin; and that, through His sanctifying grace, He desires to restore what was broken by sin. God’s desire for us has not changed. His ideal for all relationships is still unity and equality, and God’s promise to humanity is that the world of Genesis 1,2 will ultimately be restored (Revelation 21:1). But until that day, in our marriages, the promise of His sanctifying grace is “designed to lead [us] back as much as possible to the original plan of harmony and union between equal partners without hierarchy”.⁹

1. For a detailed exposition of God’s original plan for equality and His judgement of post-Fall inequality, see Richard Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, p58-80.
2. B Lerch, “From Blue- to Steel-Collar Jobs: The Decline in Employment Gaps?” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 17:1 (2025) p126-160.
3. <cambridge.org/news-and-insights/girls-outperform-boys> cf. <https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/gender-education-and-skills_34680dd5-en.html> Accessed Nov 7, 2025.
4. See Darius Jankiewicz, “Hermeneutics of Slavery: A ‘Bible-Alone Faith and the Problem of Human Enslavement,” Journal of Adventist Mission Studies: Vol. 12: No. 1, 47-73. < digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=jams>.
5. See, for example, L Heise and A Kotsadam, “Cross-National and Multilevel Correlatives of Partner Violence: An Analysis of Data from Population-Based Surveys,” The Lancet 3 (2015), p. 332-340; cf. K Giles, The Headship of Men and the Abuse of Women: Are They Related in Any Way?, 2020; and J Hill, See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse, 2019.
6. See, for example, DS Black, S Sussman and JB Unger, “A Further Look at the Intergenerational Transmission of Violence: Witnessing Interparental Violence in Emerging Adulthood,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Oct. 2, 25:6 (2009), p. 1022-1042.
7. See Darius Jankiewicz, “Breaking Down the Gender Walls of Antiquity,” Spes Christiana 34:1, 2023, 5-26. <works.hcommons.org/records/72kxa-7y711>.
8. RM Davidson, p58-80.
9. RM Davidson, p76.

---

Drs Edyta and Darius Jankiewicz serve at the South Pacific Division as family ministries director and field, ministerial secretary and Spirit of Prophecy coordinator.