Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
24. Therefore ] Translate, certainly, But. The Apostle has guarded the husband s headship from undue comparison with the Lord’s; but now he enforces its true likeness to it.
their own ] There is an emphasis in “ own ”; a suggestion at once of a holy limit, as against wandering loves, and of the fact that not only does the wife belong to the husband, but the husband to the wife (Monod).
in every thing ] In all relations and interests. This great rule will always, of course, be over -ruled by supreme allegiance to Christ; but its spirit will never be violated in the Christian home.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In everything – In everything which is not contrary to the will of God; see the notes on Eph 5:23.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. In every thing.] That is, every lawful thing; for it is not intimated that they should obey their husbands in any thing criminal, or in any thing detrimental to the interests of their souls. The husband may be profligate, and may wish his wife to become such also; he may be an enemy to true religion, and use his authority to prevent his wife from those means of grace which she finds salutary to her soul; in none of these things should she obey him.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
As the church is subject to Christ, viz. with cheerfulness, chastity, humility, obedience, &c.
So let the wives be to their own husbands; in imitation of the churchs subjection to Christ, as a pattern of their subjection to their husbands.
In every thing; understand, to which the authority of the llusband extends itself.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. ThereforeTranslate, asGreek, “But,” or “Nevertheless,” that is,though there be the difference of headships mentioned in Eph5:23, nevertheless, thus far they are one, namely, in thesubjection or submission (the same Greek stands for “issubject,” as for “submit,” Eph 5:21;Eph 5:22) of the Church toChrist, being the prototype of that of the wife to the husband.
their ownnot in mostof the oldest manuscripts, and not needed by the argument.
in every thingappertainingto a husband’s legitimate authority; “in the Lord” (Col3:18); everything not contrary to God.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,…. Her head, being wholly dependent upon him, and entirely resigned to him, and receiving all from him; from whom alone is all her expectation of provision, protection, comfort, and happiness; wherefore she has respect to all his commands, and esteems all his precepts concerning all things to be right; and yields a cheerful, voluntary, sincere, and hearty obedience to them; arising from a principle of love to him, and joined with honour, fear, and reverence of him:
so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in everything: political, domestic, and ecclesiastic; that is consistent with the laws of God, and the Gospel of Christ.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But (). Perhaps, “nevertheless,” in spite of the difference just noted. Once again the verb has to be supplied in the principal clause before either as indicative () or as imperative ().
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Therefore [] . Rev, correctly, but. Offsetting the relation of savior. The comparison does not hold in respect of salvation, but it does hold in respect of subjection.
26 Sanctify and cleanse [ ] . Rev., might sanctify, having cleansed. The Rev. brings out the proper succession of sanctification as a consequence of cleansing : might sanctify after having cleansed.
With the washing of water [ ] . Loutron washing is properly laver. Note the article, the laver, as something well known. There is no satisfactory evidence for the meaning washing. The allusion is to baptism. Some find a reference to the bride ‘s bath before marriage.
By the word [ ] . Rev., correctly, with the word. To be connected with having cleansed it by the laver of water : not with might sanctify, nor with the laver of water alone, as a descriptive epithet. With the word describes that which accompanies the rite and which is the peculiar element of baptismal purification. Compare Joh 14:3. Augustine says : “Take away the word, and what is the water but water ?”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ” (alla hos he ekklesia hupotassetai to christo) “But as the church is subject to Christ (as head).” A conclusion is to be understood that as Christ is the head, ruler, superintendent in all actions of the church, the husband has a parallel position of responsibility and respect in the family unit of society, Col 3:18. Christ is head of the church and Savior of the church-body, “but” man is not said to be head of the church or Savior of the family-body unit, a distinction of difference.
2) “So let the wives be to their own husbands” (houtos kai hai gunaikes tois androsin)”Even so let the wives be to their husbands,” or in like manner in things pertaining to the marriage relation the wife should be subject to the husband. The phrase “to their own husbands” is one that suggests a holy limit, in contrast with wandering love-lust and not only that the wife belongs to the husband, but also the husband to the wife in an exclusive way.
3) “In every thing ‘ (en panti) “in all things,” or in everything in the ordering of the marriage or family matters, subject to supreme allegiance of both to Christ, 1Pe 3:1-3.
A FAITHFUL WIFE
As I was conversing with a pious old man, I inquired what were the means of his conversion. For a moment he paused: I perceived I had touched a tender string. Tears gushed from his eyes, while, with deep emotion, he replied, “My wife was brought to God some years before myself. I persecuted and abused her because of her religion. She, however, returned nothing but kindness, constantly manifesting an anxiety to promote my comfort and happiness; and it was her amiable conduct, when suffering ill-treatment from me, that first sent the arrows of conviction to my soul. “
–N.Y. Observer
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. But, as the church is subject to Christ. The particle but, may lead some to believe that the words, he is the savior of the body, are intended to anticipate an objection. Christ has, no doubt, this peculiar claim, that he is the Savior of the Church: nevertheless, let wives know, that their husbands, though they cannot produce equal claims, have authority over them, after the example of Christ. I prefer the former interpretation; for the argument derived from the word but, ( ἀλλά,) does not appear to me to have much weight.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
24. As the Church so the wives Sexual nature, on which marriage is based, man shares not only with the wide animal world, but, strange as to the unscientific it sounds, even with the vegetable world. But this animal love, which through all nature is the divinely constituted source of natural life, in man is overlaid by a sentiment of sentimental love, which blushes at and overshadows the mere animal appetite, and appropriates with a higher congeniality, celebrated in poetry and romance, person to person in a heart-union. But overlying this is a moral love, which sanctions the two lower impulses in their purity, and forms the type of Christ’s own divine and eternal love for those united to him by faith in his redeeming blood. Hence, in the Christian conception, the marital love, in its purity, is a type of the love of Christ for his Church. But as the Church rejoices, with the highest joy, over her allegiance to Christ, so a reliant allegiance to her husband, rejoicing at being weak in herself and strong in him, is a woman’s glory.
In every thing And the more without exception, the better for both. But the apostle is picturing the model family, in which the reciprocal duties are presupposed as being duly performed. Where the reverse is the case, then sad and necessary exceptions come in. When the husband neglects his duty, it may reasonably compel the wife to overstep her normal position. Where he enjoins a violation of the law of God, the law of God is supreme. Violence may compel withdrawal, and adultery dissolves the marriage. Yet for the true relation of mutual marriage love, where the subordinate and the superior wills are united in one permanent, harmonious train of volition, the apostle can find no type so complete as the union between Christ and his Church.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But as the church is subject to Christ so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.’
The wife is to follow the pattern of the people of God who are submissive to Christ ‘in everything’. Thus she is to be subject to her husband in everything. But in a godly household this will result in reasonable discussion not dictatorship, just as a good king would discuss matters with his counsellors. However this is because the wife has the right to expect her husband to behave towards her with the same consideration as Christ does to His church.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Ver. 24. Therefore as the Church ] Denying herself to please Christ, making his will her law.
In everything ] In all her husband’s lawful commands and restraints. A wife should have no will of her own, but submit to her husband’s; albeit there are those who merrily say that when man lost freewill, woman took it up.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Eph 5:24 . , : nevertheless as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be subject to their husbands in everything . For the best editors give . For the of the TR, supported by [624] 3 [625] [626] and most cursives, read (with LTTrWHRV) , which is found in [627] [628] [629] * [630] [631] , 17, 67 2 , etc. But B omits it. The inserted by TR (after [632] [633] 3 [634] [635] [636] and various Versions, etc.) before is wanting in [637] [638] [639] * [640] , 17, 67 2 , etc., and should be deleted. It has crept in probably from Eph 5:22 . The question here is as to the force of the . Some suppose a suppressed negation before it, e.g. , “be not disobedient,” “do not disallow the marital headship, but ,” etc. (Eadie). Others give it a resumptive force (Harl., etc.). But the supposed digression, which can only be the brief clause , requires no such resumption. Others give it a certain syllogistic force, understanding it to introduce a proof of the preceding statement, presenting the relation in a new light, or an inference from the statement (De Wette, Olsh.); but does not draw conclusions like , nor is it = , although it may introduce a minor proposition; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 291; Hartung, Partikl. , ii., p. 384. Others make it = “ but then , which is the main thing,” etc., supposing Eph 5:24 to give a second proof of the fact that wives should be obedient to their husbands as to the Lord a proof drawn from the position held by Christ and by the husband, viz. , that of being head (Win.-Moult., p. 565). This, however, would be expressed rather by than by , the former being the particle that in opposing also continues and connects , adding something distinct from what has preceded, while the latter has the full opposing significance, disannulling or discounting something mentioned before (Win.-Moult., p. 551). The , therefore, must have its full adversative force, and is best rendered “nevertheless,” “for all that”. The twenty-fourth verse thus looks to the peculiarity mentioned as belonging to Christ’s headship in distinction from the husband’s, viz. , the fact that He is not only Head, but Saviour. And the idea becomes this “Christ indeed is Saviour of the body, and that the husband is not; nevertheless the question of obedience is not affected thereby; for all that, as the Church is subject to Christ, so too are wives to be subject to their husbands” (so subst. Calv., Beng., Mey., Ell., Alf., etc.). In the clause , “ let the wives be subject,” as in RV text and according to most commentators, or better, , “so are the wives also” (as in RV marg.), is to be supplied from the preceding . The naturally means in everything pertaining to the marriage-relation.
[624] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[625] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[626] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[627] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[628] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[629] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[630] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
[631] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
[632] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[633] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[634] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[635] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[636] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
[637] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[638] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[639] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[640] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Therefore = But.
subject. The same as “submit” in Eph 5:21.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Eph 5:24. , but as) The antithesis is, husbands, wives.-, is subject) Supply here also [from the end of the verse], in every thing.- , let wives) be subject [be subordinate].
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Eph 5:24
Eph 5:24
But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.-The wife is to be submissive to her husband in everything, as the church is to Christ, as the Son of God. He requires nothing save what God requires. This in everything is necessarily modified as above by everything compatible with obedience to God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
in: Eph 5:33, Exo 23:13, Exo 29:35, Col 3:20, Col 3:22, Tit 2:7, Tit 2:9
Reciprocal: Est 1:12 – refused Isa 55:4 – a leader Mat 22:2 – which 1Co 11:3 – and the head of the Eph 5:21 – submitting Eph 5:22 – submit 1Ti 3:5 – the church Heb 12:23 – the general
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Eph 5:24.) -But as the church is subject to Christ. The reading has no decided authority. The commencement of this clause occasions some difficulty. The hypothesis of Harless-not unlike that of Rckert, that is used to resume the main discourse-has been ably refuted by Olshausen. It is true that does often follow a digression, but there is none here; and even if the words were a digression, they form but a single clause, and did not surely necessitate a formal . To give this particle, with Zanchius and others, the meaning of now or wherefore, cannot be allowed, however such a meaning may seem to suit the reasoning. , says Olshausen, simply introduces the proof drawn from what precedes. The husband is head of the wife, as Christ is Head of the church, and the apostle argues-but as the church is subject to Christ, so ought wives to be to their husbands. Winer, 53, 7, a, says that concludes the demonstration. De Wette’s view is similar-the clause exhibits the other aspect of the relation, as if he said-aber daraus folgt auch. Hofmann understands the antithesis thus-but where the husband is not to his wife what he should be, in imitation of Christ, still subordination on her part remains a duty. Schriftb. vol. Eph 2:2, p. 116. Robinson says that is used in an antithetic clause to express something additional, and may be rendered but, but now, but further. In the instances adduced by him there is marked antithesis; but though this passage is placed among them, there is in it no expressed contrast. Baumgarten-Crusius smiles at such as find any difficult y in , for it means, he says, dennoch aber-though the husband has his obligation as saviour of the body, the wife, yet the wife has hers too, and should be obedient. This interpretation creates an antithesis by giving the clause He is Saviour of the body a meaning it cannot bear. See Bretschneider’s Lexicon, sub voce. Meyer and Stier follow an alternative explanation of Calvin, making the antithesis of the following nature-Christ has this as a special characteristic, that He is Saviour of His church; nevertheless, let wives know, that their husbands are over them after the example of Christ. Meyer’s improved representation of this idea is-He Himself, and none other, is the Saviour of the body, yet this relation, which belongs to Him exclusively, does not supersede the obligation of obedience on the part of wives towards their husband; but as the church is subject to Christ, so ought wives to submit to their husbands. The same antithesis is more lucidly phrased by Bengel-though Christ and not the husband is the Saviour, and though the husband can have no such claim on his wife, yet the wife is to obey him as the church obeys Christ. Similarly Hodge, Ellicott, and Alford. The sense is good, but sounds like a truism. Himself is Saviour of the body-that certainly man is not and cannot be, nevertheless as, etc.-you are to obey your husbands, who can never have claims on you like Christ. The choice is between this and giving an antithetic reference. It is very often used after an implied negative, especially after questions which imply a negative answer. Luk 7:7; Joh 7:49; Act 19:2. See also Rom 3:31; Rom 8:37; 1Co 6:8; 1Co 9:12. And without a question, such usage, implying a suppressed negative answer, is prevalent. Compare Luk 23:15; 2Co 8:7; 2Co 13:4; Gal 2:3; Php 1:18; Php 2:17; 1Ti 1:15-16; Vigerus, De Idiotismis, cap. viii. 1. A singularly acute paper on will be found in the appendix to the Commentary of Fritzsche on Mark. If we apply such an idiom to the passage before us, the sense will then be this: The man is head of the woman, as Christ is Head of the church-Himself Saviour of the body-do not disallow the marital headship, for it is a Divine institution–but as the church is subject to Christ-
()-so let the wives be subject to their husbands in everything. , which in the Received Text stands before , is properly rejected from the text. The words mean in everything within the proper circuit of conjugal obligation. If the husband trespass beyond this sphere he usurps, and cannot insist upon the obedience implied in the matrimonial contract. Obedience on the part of a wife is not a superinduced obligation. It springs from the affection and softness of her very nature, which is not fitted for robust and masculine independence, but feels the necessity of reliance and protection. It is made to confide, not to govern. In the domestic economy, though government and obedience certainly exist, they are not felt in painful or even formal contrast; and, in fact, they are so blended in affectionate adjustment, that the line which severs them cannot be distinguished. The law of marital government is a . Even the heathen poets, as may be seen in the following quotations from Menander, Philemon, and Euripides, acknowledged such a law, though they could not treat the subject with the tenderness, beauty, and propriety of the apostle. Their notions are harder-
, . . . .
, .
Their images are humiliating-
,
and the feminine consciousness both of weakness and degradation occasionally breaks out-
,
, .
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Eph 5:24. All normal human bodies are subject to and controlled by their head, and likewise the church is subject to Christ its head. Since the husband is the head of the wife (verse 23), she is to be subjected to him. In every thing is modified by the proviso mentioned and explained at verse 22.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Eph 5:24. But. This is strongly adversative; notwithstanding this difference the resemblance in the matter of duty remains. The other explanations are far less satisfactory.
As the church is subject to Christ (the word is the same as that rendered submit yourselves in Eph 5:21-22), so let the wives also be to their husbands. Own should be omitted here. The repeated exhortation is strengthened still further by the phrase: in everything. This is to be understood in accordance with in the Lord (Eph 5:22), and with the precepts which follow. The submission is in everything, but this phrase teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over all departments, but is limited in all, first, by the nature of the relation; and secondly, by the higher authority of God (Hodge).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
In case you don’t know it, we are in the middle of a very important passage relating to marriage – a passage that is little taught to our youth and our church.
You might note again that Paul mentions “OWN” husband for the second time. One must wonder what was going on at Ephesus that needed this emphasis. Were the wives in error in the way they related to their husbands? Were the husbands erring in how they related to their wives? I would assume one of these would be the case. Indeed, true Biblical marriage was probably far from the concept of their day.
We might take a moment or two and consider how all this headship and submission work out in a marriage. First of all I don’t know that there is any hard and fast way to accomplish this in a relationship and that the relationship may change drastically over the years. Marriages change and people change, so the submission/headship may also change.
I’m sure that in some cases in old age the man might be unable to take the headship as he should and the wife may have to take on more responsibility, but as long as the husband is able, he should be the head.
It seems to work well if the wife is asked to give her opinion on things, such as money, future, home etc. There should be a discussion and then the husband would make the final decision. Personally, I have found that if my wife has reservations about something that there ultimately is good reason to think seriously about the final decision.
The wife can be a valuable resource of opinion, knowledge and wisdom. She is not totally ignorant because she is submissive; she is a part of the union and should be given her say.
I might note that any headship/submission discussion take place after both parties read Pro 31:10 which has a lot of information for the husband to understand about a submissive wife.
I would like to take the next few verses as a unit. They paint a very interesting picture. Many expositors go to great lengths to show how giving, and self depriving a good husband should be to uplift their wives onto a pedestal with all the goodies and toys that they could ever want.
I don’t get that picture at all. I don’t see that the man is to do these things to uplift his wife, nor to make her feel better about herself, nor to give her a good self image, nor to do any of these usual items.
Let’s read: 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Husbands do it as Christ did it for the church. Husbands, give of yourself to the max for your wife. Why? That she might be a sanctified and pure child of God. The text tells of the great lengths Christ went to assure a glorious church without spot, wrinkle etc. Holy without blemish.
So, husbands love your wives enough to assure that they are the godly, holy women that they ought to be. Not for yourself, but for your Father in Heaven.
This does not preclude our doing in the physical realm for our wives, and helping them, and encouraging them, but this passage is clearly looking to the SPIRITUAL nurture that a husband should give to that one he has committed his life to. This includes finding a good church to attend, this includes listening to every sermon and lesson to assure that it is correct and taking steps to point out any deficiencies that might have been present.
This includes guiding the television viewing, the book reading, the magazine reading, and the spare time associations she might form with other women.
This includes helping her to understand the Word as you live your lives together.
This includes spending time with her to know what she is thinking and experiencing in life. It is helping her understand how to handle life’s situations as they come along.
It will include taking a lot of time to assure that she becomes the woman that she can and should be for God. It might include encouraging her to participate in ministries that she is excited about. She is gifted by the Spirit so should be involved in some sort of ministry within the church.
AND – all this is to be done in a proper manner that is not irritating, nor abrasive, nor dictatorial. It is to be done in humility and meekness, as the Lord did all of His work on our behalf. It probably will also be costly for the husband, not in dollars and cents, but in time, effort, thought, and emotion.
It is to be a giving of the husband for the woman’s godly state.
Now, that we have taken care of the marriage relationship we need to look at the passage again and pick out the characteristics of the Church that we are given here.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
5:24 {11} Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
(11) The conclusion of the wives’ duties towards their husbands.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
This verse continues the comparison. Submission is the proper response to sovereignly designated authority in the church-Christ relationship and in the wife-husband relationship. [Note: See Wayne Grudem, "Does kephale (’Head’) Mean ’Source’ or ’Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples," Trinity Journal 6NS (1985):38-59; idem. "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies," Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):3-72; and idem, "The Meaning of kephale (’head’): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):25-65.] "In everything" means in everything within the wife-husband relationship, the context within which the apostle was speaking. Paul probably did not mean in absolutely everything since the wife has a higher responsibility to obey the Lord. When she encounters conflicting authorities, the Lord, through His Word, telling her to do one thing and her husband telling her to do a contradictory thing, she should obey the Lord. [Note: See Eadie, p. 413.]
"The Scripture is the guide for faith and life in the Christian home. A husband’s authority in the home is derivative: as a servant of God, his authority comes from God. He is, therefore, subject to Scripture in all that he does, and has no freedom to guide his family in ways which contradict it. Should he clearly do so, individual members must follow God before man. The example of Sapphira’s willing sin and personal accountability makes this clear (Act 5:9)." [Note: James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, pp. 150-51.]
What about a Christian wife whose unsaved husband beats or otherwise abuses her? Is she to be submissive to him in everything? Peter addressed such a situation in 1Pe 3:1-3 and commanded wives in those situations to "be submissive." He did not add "in everything." I would counsel such a woman to maintain a submissive attitude but to take measures to protect herself from danger. In commanding submission neither Paul nor Peter was saying wives must submit to situations in which they are in danger. They wanted them to submit to their husbands as God’s appointed head over them. They dealt with the basic principles believers should observe, not all the possible situations that might arise.
"The final addition in every thing might seem more than can be accepted as God’s purpose by this present generation with its stress on emancipation of womanhood, and the place of woman outside the home in every sphere of life that man occupies. Has not a woman equal rights with a man to self-determination? May not a married woman make herself a career as well as her husband? The answer that the New Testament would give is that she may do so, provided that it does not mean the sacrifice of the divine pattern for home life, for family relationships and for the whole Christian community. She may fulfill any function and any responsibility in society, but if she has accepted before God the responsibility of marriage and of a family these must be her first concern, and this is expressed here in terms of her relationship to her husband as head of the home." [Note: Foulkes, pp. 156-57.]