Introduction
In this blog post, I briefly respond to ideas about the instructions to wives and husbands given in Ephesians 5. Each of these ideas touches on the concept of “male headship” to some extent. “Male headship,” which is typically understood as being about male authority, is popular in some evangelical circles. I believe, however, that we will misconstrue Paul’s aim in Ephesians 5:22-33 and his instructions to husbands if we read them through a lens of leadership and authority.
Here are my responses to five flawed ideas, or misconceptions, about “headship” that I often hear.
Ephesians 5:22-33 is not about male-female relationships generally.
First, Ephesians 5:22-33 is not about relationships between women and men more generally. This passage is about the one-to-one relationship of Christian marriage where both partners are spirit-led Jesus-followers. Paul used a Greek word (idiois) in verse 22 that means “own”: a wife is to submit (“fasten/ commit”?) herself to her own man, that is, to her own husband.[1]
There is nothing in Ephesians 5 that suggests women owe men (in general) a greater level of deference or respect or commitment than they owe the rest of humanity, and vice versa.
Furthermore, we will miss Paul’s meaning if we carelessly interpret Ephesians 5:23 as saying “The husband is the head of the house.”[2] Ephesians 5:22-33 is about marriage.
Permanent, one-sided submission has no place in the body of Christ.
Second, it should go without saying that subordinating or subjecting people is the opposite of what Jesus taught about relationships among his followers. This is a no-brainer. Expecting or continually accepting one-sided submission from a fellow believer or spouse, rather than reciprocal service and mutual “give and take” (mutual submission?), is also the opposite of what Jesus taught and was not Paul’s ideal.[3]
When one person (or one group of people) is permanently and unilaterally submissive to another person (or to another group of people), a subclass is formed. A subclass of submissive, but otherwise capable, adults within our Christian communities, based on gender, ethnicity, social or economic situation, age, or whatever, should cause concern for followers of Jesus. This is not what the gospel is about.
Paul doesn’t tell husbands to have leadership or spiritual authority.
Third, Paul never tells husbands to lead or have authority over their wives, and he never tells them to be unilaterally responsible for the spiritual formation of their wives. Never. Not once. Neither does Jesus or Peter. No New Testament person or author tells husbands to have leadership or spiritual authority over their wives.
Paul told the husbands in Ephesus to love their wives. He uses the Greek verb for “love” (agapaō) 6 times when addressing them in Ephesians 5:25ff. Six times! Leadership is simply not mentioned in the verses addressed to husbands.
And this is what Paul says in Colossians 3:19: “Husbands, love your wives and don’t be bitter (or, harsh) toward them.” This sounds like good advice to me. Too often, Paul’s words on marriage have been misapplied in bitter and harsh ways towards women which is the very opposite of what the apostle wanted.
Ephesians 5:22-33 says nothing about a decision-making process.
Fourth, in countless comments I’ve received over the years, people have explained to me how they understand Ephesians 5 and the obligations of wives and husbands. For them, it often comes down to decision-making. But this has nothing to do with Paul’s actual words and the illustration he gives in Ephesians 5. A scenario of decision-making isn’t mentioned here.[4]
Paul was not suggesting that it is the husband’s role or responsibility to make the final or tie-breaking decision. The only time Paul mentions husbands and wives making a decision, he says the decision should be made by mutual agreement (1 Cor. 7:5 NET).
Also, the idea that the husband has final-decision-making power is dangerous in abusive relationships and not needed in healthy ones.
Paul’s words in Ephesians 5 are about ongoing dispositions and behaviours, day in and day out. His words are not about making an occasional decision. They are also not about a hypothetical, life-saving, heroic action or about who pays the bills which are two other scenarios I hear from time to time.
The term “headship” poorly reflects what Paul says to husbands.
Fifth, and my last point, “headship” is not a biblical term. The concept of “male headship” in Christian relationships is a construct that has been primarily built on two Bible verses, Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, often with a bit of Genesis 2 thrown in. Three passages, with three different contexts and three different aims, do not form a reliable or firm basis for an inflexible doctrine that has far-reaching and deeply felt ramifications. And I propose that Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, their contexts and Paul’s aims, have been poorly understood.[5]
What words we choose to use can have a profound impact on our audiences. What difference would it make if, instead of “headship,” the word “loveship” was used for husbands? Considering that the word “head” occurs only twice in Ephesians 5 (Eph. 5:23), but the word “love” occurs six times when Paul addresses husbands directly (Eph. 5:25, 28, 33 cf. Col. 3:19), and that husbands are plainly instructed to love their wives, why was the word “headship” coined and why has it gained traction in evangelical churches?
Paul told husbands to sacrificially love and care for their wives (Eph. 5:25, 28-29). He did not tell them to lead their wives which is how “headship” is often understood. Moreover, using almost the exact same language which he used for husbands in Ephesians 5:25, Paul told all the Ephesians to love “as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph. 5:2). (I look at this language here.)
Loving our spouse is not just the obligation of husbands, and being submissive, for want of a better word, is not just the obligation of wives (e.g., Eph. 5:1-2; 21).
Conclusion
We need to look closely at the example Paul gives to wives and husbands in Ephesians 5, namely, Christ as the head of the church, the saviour of the body. Furthermore, we need to pay attention to all the words he uses in explaining this example, and not focus on just a few words or phrases. Paul’s words to husbands should inform and influence how we read his words to wives, and vice versa. And we need to use both kindness and commonsense when applying any Bible verse.[6]
My aim in this blog post is to dispel wrong interpretations of Ephesians 5 and to point out the “patina” (as someone recently called it) that overlies and influences how many read this passage. I have other articles where I discuss, more positively and in more depth, what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-33 here.
I’m speaking on this passage at a CBE Sydney meeting this Tuesday evening, the 23rd of July (2024), and I’m giving a 30-minute talk on it the following Sunday at a Baptist Church near Hornsby, north of Sydney.
Footnotes
[1] I propose that the verbs “fasten” or “commit” may be a better translation of the Greek verb hypotassō in Ephesians 5:22-24 than “submit.” I have more on this “fasten/ commit” interpretation in a two-part article here.
[2] In Esther 1:22, Xerxes gives the decree that, “every man should be master of his own house.” And in Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve that man will rule woman. As New Covenant people of God, however, we should not take our cues for living from pagan kings or from the consequences of the fall. Moreover, Paul does not use the word “head” to mean “master” or “ruler.” I give an overview of Paul’s use of “head” here.
In anticipation of further pushback, I have a discussion on Paul’s words to church overseers about “managing and caring” (proistēmi) for their households here. And I have a discussion on the vows in Numbers 30 here.
[3] I broadly define submission in Christian relationships as “humble, loyal, and loving deference and cooperation.” I include the word “loving” in my definition because all Christian behaviours should include, and be motivated by, love. Being submissive has similarities with the Christian virtues of humility and meekness.
[4] John Piper claims, “Mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance. In a good marriage decision-making is focussed on the husband, but is not unilateral. …”
Piper, What’s the Difference?: Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible (Crossway: 1990), 32-33. (A free PDF of this book is accessible here.)
Despite having the word “Bible” in the title of his book, there is no biblical basis for Piper’s claim.
[5] 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a whole other ball game. Paul uses “head” in a different way in 1 Corinthians 11:3 from the “head-body” (unity) metaphor which is used a few times in his letter to the Ephesians. Also, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about people involved in spoken ministry in Corinth; it’s about men and women who were praying and prophesying. It’s not about marriage, as such. I have plenty to say about 1 Corinthians 11:3 and the surrounding passage, here.
[6] Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 5:22-33 were made with Christian marriages in mind, where both the husband and wife are loving sacrificially (Eph. 5:1-2), are spirit-led (Eph. 5:18ff), and are mutually submissive (Eph. 5:21). Paul’s words to wives and husbands in Ephesians 5:22-33 don’t override the words at the beginning of the chapter; they add to them. His words to wives and husbands also don’t override the other “one another” verses in the New Testament about loving, serving, building up, caring for, and honouring one another. We mustn’t apply Paul’s words in narrow ways that can cause harm.
© Margaret Mowczko 2024
All Rights Reserved
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Explore more
My articles on “Egalitarian Basics” are here.
Jesus on Leadership and Community in Matthew’s Gospel
Submission in Christian Marriage
All my articles on Ephesians 5 are here.
A Close Look at Colossians 3:18-19
1 Corinthians 7:4 and its Broader Context
An Overview of Paul’s Use of Kephalē (“Head”)
My articles on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are here.
My articles on 1 Peter 3:1-7 are here.
“Head” and “Headship” in Genesis 1-3
Is a Gender Hierarchy Implicit in Genesis 2?
Being an Ezer (“helper”) is not a Gender Role
4 Old Testament Passages Sometimes Used to Diminish Women
Image Credit
Image by Thanh Pham from Pixabay. (Cropped)
20 thoughts on “5 Flawed Ideas About “Headship” in Marriage”
Thank you for what you do. I think the root of this “headship” issue is summed up perfectly, by God, of course, in Genesis 3:16: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Since the moment of the fall, men have been trying to dominate and rule over us, and justify this based on the scripture. I think there is a deep core wounding from the fall, where Eve ate the apple first, and so, trust was lost between us. Men don’t trust themselves with us, or trust us to lead, as a result. To me, it’s something that needs healing between us. It’s a healthy part of following Christ, to allow for and pursue this healing, and reconciliation, through Him. We are no longer bound by the fall when we are set free in Christ, yet the legacy of this still continues in the church, full of wounded people carrying out generational issues from the dawn of creation.
I love your academic study, but I’m going to share a personal testimony here now, in case anyone can resonate with it, who may be on the fence. Two years ago, Christ called me out of the world. I was a very embittered, lost, deeply broken woman who considered myself a feminist. I had been truly brutalized by men from a young age. I blamed “the patriarchy,” God, and the Bible, in general, for this. In His mercy, I had a supernatural revelation of Christ, He lifted the scales from my eyes, so to speak, and I knew He was real. I surrendered my whole life to Him immediately and His grace descended from heaven. I was swept up in a tidal wave of unconditional love and peace like I had never felt before. He began to heal me of all the ways men (and also women and the world) had broken me. Of all the ways I had broken myself, as a result.
I immediately asked the Holy Spirit which church to go to, on my knees that day, in October 2022, and He told me a specific Foursquare Church. At the time, I didn’t know the denomination was founded by a female preacher over 100 years ago, or anything about it. I guess I wasn’t ready yet, because I ended up at 5 other churches, on a journey God took graciously took me on, when I had initialy rebelled. Each progressively more complementarian and traditional. I was still holding shame from being a “feminist.” I was still repressing myself and healing those wounds with God. I needed to understand the church, as a whole. I had become a disciple of Christ, instantaneously, and it was a massive shift for me. I was being transformed by God’s grace.
Then, I was finally ready to go to the church God called me to, and it’s been absolutely wonderful. I love the balance of male and female preachers and ministries. Where neither men nor women are trying to dominate one another, but work together, each bringing our unique gifts and perspectives to the Body of Christ. It feels so much more healthy, it’s a thriving church, many people are genuinely following Christ there, in numbers that were absolutely dismal in the other churches. Which were frankly, depressing, and the women even turned on me in a couple, when I was given special privileges by male (complementarian) elders because of my testimony and gifts (they wanted to control me).
It’s been quite a journey, and I’ve been learning to study the Bible, academically, as an academic, myself. Your work, particularly your word study of “Ezer” really helped open my eyes to the truth: that we are still (mostly) walking out a wounded version of Christianity in the church, as a whole. God also led me to realize, what He really is calling me to do is become a female pastor, write books, and help to heal this divide with my story, which is really His story, working through me. Thank you again, I finally feel free to pursue God’s calling on my life. A lot of healing is still happening, and it will take the time it should to get there, but I’m grateful I’ve let go of the “I’m not allowed to,” because it’s nonsense. I still hear the voice of God, and this is what He is calling me to do.
As believers, we can so often fall into fear and miss the mark, as a result. We are not called to feel terrified of God. We are called to fear eternal separation from a loving, wonderful, gracious God who wants to heal us of our pain and brokenness, once and for all. So we can love one another, and flourish, as a church, as my church does. Which I can now see, requires women being set free to pursue their God given gifts and callings. Otherwise, we have a lopsided church that doesn’t even represent us all. We need to stop letting our fear of being imperfect lead us to put God in a box, and limit how He chooses to move through us all, in the world.
Thank you for sharing, Janelle. Shalom!
It’s truly disturbing how people have misunderstood what the Bible says about women and men in Genesis 1-3. I think what Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 say about male and female humanity is amazing!
It’s deeply disturbing that some Christians, presumably New Creation people, continue to live as though Genesis 3:16 (“he will rule over you”) is the way things should be, rather than a consequence of sin.
Janelle, thank you for your testimony. It was very helpful! If you and Marg, and anyone else who sees this, could pray for me I’d appreciate it. I’ve been on this journey of understanding my place as a woman in the church for over a decade.
I came across Marg’s blog several years ago and it has truly been eye opening.
I even started learning Koine Greek.
I put my faith in Jesus 38 years ago.
My main ministry has always been music.
I am a trained vocalist and I play several instruments. I also believe that God has given me the gift of teaching and preaching. I’m highly involved in apologetics and witnessing to the lost.
I do this outside of the church I attend, within my community and on-line. I’m especially drawn to atheists, or rather God draws them to me. Lol
However, as much as I love the good parts of my church, for example, my church is extremely missions minded and preaches the saving Gospel message, I believe it’s time for me to leave.
Two weeks ago our new Pastor put all of the women in our church in our place. The gist of the sermon was, even though we are one in Christ and equal in God’s eyes, women have a role, and have no business teaching a man or having authority over a man. The Pastor said that a woman who has a leadership role over men in a church is in direct rebellion to God and that it’s a sin, because of the created order.
He said that the man is the head and only men should preach the word. He also said there’s no evidence of women being in a leadership position over men in the New Testament church and that the NT church is supposed to be our example.
Yet he also said, both men and women should be leaders in our community, and my church allows me to lead worship by singing and playing instruments, but I’m not allowed to lead prayer in a mixed congregation.
Make it make sense.
The Pastor’s message was not well received. I’ve never heard our congregation of about 300 people so quiet before. I know many women were hurt and discouraged by what was said. The negativity was palpable.
I now realize how urgent it is that I leave. I can’t be a part of this anymore.
It’s twisted and cruel. I have no desire to boss any man around or any woman for that matter. I simply want to preach the Gospel to a lost and dying world and use the gifts God has given me to build up and encourage the body of Christ.
I believe that God wants to use me for more, but if I keep going to this type of church, I will never be able to do that.
The problem is, I don’t know where to go and I will be leaving the ministry and people I love. I’ve done research for at least two years now, and the majority of churches in my area are either complementation or aren’t scripturally sound when it comes to the Gospel and what God has said is sin.
So per Janelle’s recommendation I’m going to check out Foursquare in my area.
Thank you in advance for the prayers and thank you Marg for your ministry!
Leaving a church family is so hard. It’s a huge wrench. I pray your experience will be easier than mine. God bless you, RQ!
This is a sublime authoritative post.
Pure, persuasive – not polemic.
Poetry.
Thank you.
Thank you, Adi. Polemics help no one.
that word “loveship” is perfect in helping to explain a marriage relationship….
and often with one being in authority over the other, it puts a hole in the relation-ship, then water leaks in that hole, putting the whole ship in danger of sinking !
I realise “loveship” sounds odd. I wish “headship” sounded odd to Christians. Unfortunately, “male headship,” the term and the doctrine, has been accepted by many despite its flimsy biblical basis and despite what Paul (and Peter) actually ask of husbands.
i do not understand why protestants —who believe the catholic church is wrong for having priests who take the place of jesus in that they intercede on behalf of one’s sins, cannot see that male authority in marriage or even church hierarchy is the exact same thing?
That’s a fair point.
The idea that only men can represent Jesus, or that men are better at representing Jesus, is deeply flawed in a couple of ways.
I’ve written about this here:
https://margmowczko.com/representing-jesus/
The ‘head’ —- the ‘beginning’ as the head of the river! Adam head of Woman —– with Adam’s rib YHVH Y’shua created Woman. Adam was the ‘head’ of the Woman – her beginning was Adam’s rib! Adam’s rib was the beginning of Woman as totally different than Adam’s beginning created from the Earth soil & breathed into him the breath of life by the Creator! & the ADAM Adam’s rib gave protection to his heart & lungs / the blood with the LIFE in it & the breath which is the Breath of LIFE! Woman created as the ADAM Adam’s “HELPMEET” … not Adam’s ‘helpmate’. Genesis 1:26-28 male & female – man & woman & were given by the plural / us – we – our — Creator together … co-authority male & female to subdue the Earth & to have dominion over the animal creation – over every living thing on the Earth. The plural Creator blessed them after creating them male & female in His / our- us image…. His image: SPIRIT / LOVE! The Creator in His creation of male & female — man & woman — husband & wife – NEVER authority over each other. Y’shua further defines this when answering the disciples & teaches them not to use the authority as the Gentiles do / ruling over each other but to be in covenant relationship together submitting one to another — to be servants together – serving each other. The curse of sin of unbelief includes the man ruling over the woman! But this is the curse! YHVH Y’shua Messiah became the curse for us! We are to live in the COVENANT relationship … submitting one to another & in servanthood attitude! Paul’s teaching is in alignment with Messiah Y’shua’s teaching about covenant relationships. Carol
Thanks, Carol. I see a few things slightly differently from you. As one example, I read Genesis 2 as saying God took a “side” (Hebrew: tsela; Greek: pleura) out of the first (hu)man in Eden, and God formed that “side” into a woman.
John H. Walton explains that by looking at how the word tsela is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, “we would have to conclude that God took one of Adam’s sides—likely meaning that he cut Adam in half and from one side built the woman.”
Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (InterVarsity Press, 2015), 78.
Eve was made from a significant part of the (hu)man made from earth and enlivened by God’s breath.
I completely agree, however, that male and female humanity in Genesis 1 were given the same shared authority. God created humans to act as his regents. We are to be responsible for the animals, and by extension their habitats, as God’s representatives on earth since he is not physically present. Before the fall, there is no mention of people ruling, or exercising authority over, fellow human beings.
Agreed, Genesis is critical, it lays the foundation of the Lord’s design. The Lord said it is not functional for Adam (human) to exist alone. I will make Ezer Kenegdo. Ezer translates as Ally or Helper. Helper in Hebrew means one who is qualified. Kenegdo was translated ‘Meet’, however, kenegdo literally means face to face equal but opposite. The Lord made them joint stewards of the Earth, literal translation is serve and guard. The Lord separated female from Adam’s side and built Woman. There is no headship here but joint mutual stewards. The word Kephale in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians does not translate as head, this word almost always meant origin or source, which fits Genesis, Adam was the source of female but the Lord created her. Phillip Payne did extensive research of the word Kephale and is worth the read Man and Woman One in Christ. This headship issue I have been researching too and am unable to validate this belief. Everything points to source, which fits beautifully into 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. Another word worth mentioning is also in 1 Corinthians, when Paul is stating who we are not to fellowship with, the word is Loidoros, this was translated as Reviler or Slanderer (words most of us gloss over), Loidoros means Abusive or Abuser. That word needs to be known. Thank you Carol, your posts are always refreshing
Hello Yve, If you’re interested, I’ve written about ezer here.
https://margmowczko.com/a-suitable-helper/
I’ve written about kenegdo here.
https://margmowczko.com/kenegdo-meet-subordinate-suitable-or-similar/
And there’s more here:
https://margmowczko.com/tag/a-suitable-helper/
The translation of kephalē as “origin” or “source,” especially when referring to a person or a god, is rare in surviving ancient Greek texts. Nevertheless, there may be some of this sense in Paul’s use of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3. I prefer “point of origin,” “beginning,” or “starting point” as a way of understanding kephalē (“head”) in 1 Cor. 11:3. Accordingly, the second phrase in 1 Cor. 11:3 can be understood as, “the starting point (‘head’) of Eve (‘the woman’) is Adam (‘the man’).” I’ve written about this here:
https://margmowczko.com/head-kephale-does-not-mean-leader-1-corinthians-11_3/
I can’t see that kephalē means “origin” or “source” in Ephesians chapters 1, 4 and 5 where Paul uses the word in a head-body, and also a head-feet, metaphor. I’ve written an overview of Paul’s use of kephalē here:
https://margmowczko.com/overview-pauls-use-of-head/
All my articles on kephalē (“head”) are here:
https://margmowczko.com/category/kephale-head/
Thanks for your reflection as Paul is often used to justify legal contract marriages that started in Roman Empire where women had no legal status and regarded as legal chattels to be traded for wealth , power , breeding and simply there to serve owner’s needs .Whereas Paul was totally opposed to this concept in his frequent references to equality , partnership and joint stewardship that started in Genesis .
Hi Wayne, Roman women in the first century AD, especially those with some wealth, had more power than your comment indicates.
I recommend Susan Hylen’s 2018 book, Women in the New Testament World, and Lynn Cohick’s 2009 book, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians. Dr Hylen has also written a simple book, Finding Phoebe, that looks at the social situation of first century Roman women.
Few Roman marriages in the first century were bound by any contract. Marriage and divorce was easy for both men and women.
Love your research on this subject. This may be a little lengthy, but I came across this from D.A. Carson’s book, Exegetical Fallacies, p.37. “In an article in Christianity Today, … Berkley and Alvera Mickelsen argue that “head” in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 means “source” or “origin”; but their appeal is to the standard classical lexicon (LSJ–which does of course move forward to cover Hellenistic sources), not the standard New Testament and Hellenistic Greek lexicon (Bauer). The latter lists no meaning of “source” or “origin” for (kephale, head) for the New Testament period.” … Not only do the Mickelsens appeal to LSJ, but they also fail to note the constraints that even LSJ imposes on the evidence. The Mickelsens make much of the idea head of a river as the river’s “source”; but in all such cases cited by LSJ, the word is plural, (kephalai). When the singular form (kephale) is applied to a river, it refers to a river’s mouth. The only example listed by LSJ where (kephale, sing.) means “source” or “origin” is the document the Fragmenta Orphilcorum, from the fifth century B.C. or earlier, which is both textually uncertain and patient of more than one translation. Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of (kephale) could be taken to mean “source,” all other factors being eaqual, in no case is that the required meaning; and in every instance the notion of “headship” implying authority fits equally well or better. The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which (kephale) connotes “authority.” The Mickelsen’s argument, and that of many others who have joined the same refrain, probably depends on an article by S. Bedale; but the fact remains that whatever the dependencies, the Mickelsens are attempting to appeal to an unknown or unlikely meaning. Certainly, there are sound exegetical reasons why such a meaning will not fit the context of 1 Corinthians 11;2-16.”
Hello Allen. I must admit that it bothers me that, because kephalē (“head”) is used for the source of the river in some Greek texts (I quote from a few of them href=”https://margmowczko.com/head-and-headship-in-genesis-1-3/”>in a footnote here), some think we can transfer that idea to people. The source of a river tells us nothing about a person who is a kephalē.
Similarly, it also bothers me that, because some places (e.g., Jerusalem) are referred to as a kephalē, indicating prestige, prominence, or even simply elevated topography, some transfer that idea to people. A capital city or a high, mountainous place tells us nothing about a person who is a kephalē.
It seems to me that “The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which (kephale) connotes ‘authority,’” is an overstatement. I’m wondering which lexica Dr Carson had in mind and what he meant exactly by “connotes.”
Kephalē can occur in the context of leaders, but this doesn’t mean that kephalē actually meant “leader” or “a person in authority over others.” In all the occurrences I’ve seen, in texts originally written in Greek, there’s a sense of high status, but kephalē, in and of itself, doesn’t mean “leader” or “authority.”
BDAG gives two main definitions for kephalē: “1. the part of the body that contains the brain,” and “2. a being of high status.” Walter Bauer, “κεφαλή”, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, by Walter Bauer, revised and edited by F.W Danker (University of Chicago Press, 2000), 541–542.
BrillDAG gives “leader” as a possible meaning for kephalē but specifies that this meaning occurs in the Vetus Testamentum (the Septuagint) and it cites 2 Samuel 22:44 as an example. However, the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew where rosh (“head”) could mean leader, so there may be interference from the source text here. (Rosh occurs 180 times with the meaning of “leader” or “a person in authority over others” but is only translated as kephalē 5 of these times. I mention this, with citations, here.)
Also, LSJ covers the New Testament, and much more, and it does not have a definition for kephalē that approximates leader or authority.
I’m unsure of what Dr Carson means when he says, “Certainly, there are sound exegetical reasons why such a meaning [as source] will not fit the context of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” Several early church fathers who spoke Greek understood kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3 as referring to origins or beginnings which has some similarity with “source.” I quote some of these Greek fathers here.
However, even if kephalē did mean “authority” or connoted “authority,” Paul’s instructions to husbands (Eph. 5:25ff) and his instructions about relationships which are “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11-12) are about a levelling of status and about mutual interdependence. Paul was not advocating for a hierarchy of either status or authority in Christian relationships.
[…] Marg Mowczko, 5 Flawed Ideas About “Headship” in Marriage, starting with Ephesians 5:22-33 is not about male-female relationships generally. […]
[…] 5 Flawed Ideas About Headship in Marriage […]