by Norman Bales

The Bible uses the term “head” in relation to men and women in two
different contexts.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:3

In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul wrote, “Now I want you to realize that
the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is man, and
the head of Christ is God.” Taken in an authoritative sense, this
statement offends the sensibilities of many modern day readers. Some
have charged that Paul revealed an anti-feminine bias in placing man
over woman in the “chain of command.” Some writers believe making man
“the source” of woman can lessen the impact of Paul’s language.
According to Genesis 2, woman was created from the rib of Adam.
Following the “source” theory, the word “head” (_kephale_ in Greek)
would be the equivalent of the beginning waters of a significant stream.
Since Eve originated from Adam, the term head in 1 Corinthians 11:3,
simply means that she owes her beginning to him. That seems to be the
prevailing theory among some Christian feminists.

If one decides to buy into the “origin” theory, numerous
difficulties present themselves. The word “head” occurs three times in
1 Corinthians 11:3. The last time it occurs, the text says “. . . the
head of Christ is God.” If we take that to mean origin, then God
becomes the origin of Christ, which makes Christ a created being.
According to John 1:14, Christ is an eternal being, whose existence is
outside the creation process. Warren Wiersbe commented “In his
redemptive ministry, the Son was subject to the Father even though He is
equal to the Father (John 10:30; 14:28).” _The Bible Exposition
Commentary_. Volume 1 page 603). Jesus was in submission to the
Father (John 5:19), even though he is “in very nature God” (Philippians
2:6).

The problem is compounded by the fact that the term “head” clearly
refers to authority in 1:22, Christ has been “appointed to be head over
everything for the church.” In Colossians 1:18, Jesus is described as
“head” of the church, a position in which he exercises supremacy. In
Colossians 2:10, he is ” . . . head over every power and authority.”

Until recent times, the weight of scholarly opinion has been nearly
unanimous in the conclusion that “head” implies a “chain of command.”
For an in-depth, scholarly discussion of “headship,” see Wayne Gruden’s
article, “The Meaning of Kephale (Head)”

The troublesome part, for many of us, lies in the fact that the
passage in question has been construed by some to imply the inferiority
of women. Some have assumed that because men are larger and more
aggressive by nature (as the result of testosterone), they enjoy the
right to control, dominate, intimidate and run the whole show. Paul
had nothing of the sort in mind. It must be remembered that even
though Jesus possesses a “chain-of-command” kind of “headship,” in his
earthly ministry, he exercised that role as a servant. “For even the
son of man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45).
Furthermore, Paul, who is often accused of being a male chauvinist,
clearly saw men and women occupying an equal playing field in terms of
their standing before God. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor
free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28).
Paul did indeed anticipate the leadership of men. You really have to
engage in some linguistic gymnastics to come up with any other
conclusion, but it is not a headship in which males make decisions
without consulting females. It is a headship in which a male accepts
responsibility, provides protection, selflessly serves, and makes
sacrifices. Above all, he is yielded to the headship of Jesus.

EPHESIANS 5:22-23

“Wives submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. For the
husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.”
There is no way to get around the fact that the husband’s role, as head
of the wife is parallel to Christ’s role as head of the church. We have
already seen that Paul unmistakably identified Christ as the head “over”
the church in Ephesians 1:22-23. It would be logical to assume that
he did not change the meaning of “head” in 5:22-23. William Hendriksen
observed, ” . . . he placed ultimate responsibility with respect to the
household upon the shoulders of the husband in keeping with the latter’s
creational endowment.” (_New Testament Commentary – Exposition of
Ephesians_ p. 248).

Hendriksen’s conclusion that headship is assigned on the basis of
“creational endowment” fits with Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-13
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit
a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
For Adam was first formed then Eve.” There’s something about the order
of creation that determines headship. We will discuss the nature of
submission at a later time. At this point, we are simply noting that
Paul’s rationale for headship involves the order of creation.

Again, Paul’s remarks about headship must be viewed against the
background of servant-leadership, which we will also discuss at another
time. Within the context of Paul’s assertion of the headship of
husbands, he instructed them to “love their wives as Christ loved the
church and gave himself for her”(Ephesians 5:25) and to “love their
wives as their own bodies” (Ephesians 5:28). The concept of headship
does not work apart from submission to Christ. Many men who never
consult a Bible otherwise are sometimes fond of citing Ephesians
5:22-23. If they ever bothered to read the rest of the context, they
wouldn’t be so eager to quote Paul.

A family cannot function without leadership. God has assigned the
task of leadership to husbands. Our problems lie more in the realm of
the abuse of authority and the misunderstanding of authority than the
concept of authority itself. C. S. Lewis once said, “If there must be
a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any serious wish that it
should be a woman? . . . as far as I can see, even a woman who wants
to be head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of
things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to
say, ‘Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about
the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is
even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship.’
There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over
husbands, because wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise
the husbands whom they rule.” (_Mere Christianity. pp. 102-103_)

CONCLUSION

Apparently, there are two avenues of reason open to those who
attempt to reconcile feminism with Christianity. The first (and most
honorable) is to attempt to re-study the text in the light of current
social realities. I find it very difficult to treat the text
objectively and reach the conclusion that the Bible teaches the
contemporary concept of egalitarianism. The second approach is to
view the Bible as a sort of “work in progress,” a message that
constantly shifts to line up with the most recent social trends. Such a
view challenges the authoritative message of Scripture, which is our
source of knowledge about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. If the Bible
is “the Supreme Court” in these matters, husbands are not to be little
“Hitlers” in their homes, but they do have a God given leadership
assignment.

Related Articles:

• The Parents Poem (Robert Bly)
• Gay man opposes gay marriage
• Being a Pastor Doesn’t Automatically Make You a Sex Therapist
• Is the Men’s Movement Dead?
• Making a Will

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.