Introduction
As the church submits to Christ, so also wives to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:24).[1]
Someone recently told me that the instructions in Ephesians 5:22-24 for wives to submit to their husbands are “an emphatic command.” He followed this up by saying, “The emphasis lies in ‘in everything.‘ It’s a total submission that’s expected.”
Paul’s instructions to wives, however, are not worded as “an emphatic command” in the Greek. Paul wanted the Ephesian wives to be submissive or committed to their own husbands, but his words to the women are somewhat circumspect rather than direct and emphatic. In the oldest surviving manuscripts, there is no Greek word for “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 or 24b (or any other verb) in the phrases where wives are given instructions.[2] (I’ve written about the wording and Greek grammar of these verses here.)
But what did Paul mean when he wrote, “in everything”? Does “total submission” convey his intention? Are there limits to wifely submission?
Paul’s Use of “In Everything”
The Greek adjective pas (“every, all”), in its various forms, occurs over 1200 times in the Greek New Testament. It’s used a lot! Often, the context shows that it doesn’t mean “every, all” in the way English speakers understand these words. That is, pas doesn’t always mean “everything without exceptions.”
In Ephesians 5:24, Paul uses the dative neuter of pas with a preposition: en panti (“in everything”).[3] This phrase occurs 26 times in Paul’s letters,[4] and he typically uses it relatively and generally.[5]
For example, in 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Paul urges his audience to give thanks “in everything” (en panti). He would have expected the Thessalonians to apply this instruction sensibly. He did not want them to mindlessly give thanks for things that were unworthy of gratitude (cf. Eph. 5:20).
In 1 Corinthians 1:5, Paul tells the Corinthians that they have been enriched “in everything” or “in every way” (en panti). But he then narrows the scope of “in everything” and specifies that they have become rich “in every word and in all knowledge.”
Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 8:7, Paul says that the Corinthians excel “in everything” (en panti). But he goes on to clarify that “in everything” encompasses faith, speech, knowledge, diligence, and their love for Paul and his associates. The Corinthian’s excellence did not extend to everything without exception; it was limited to specific attributes.
For further comparison, here are the other verses in Paul’s letters that contain en panti where, like Ephesians 5:24, en panti is not followed by a noun in the same phrase: 2 Cor. 4:8; 6:4ff, 7:5, 7:11; 7:16 NASB; 2 Cor. 9:8, 9:11, 11:6, 11:9 NKJV; Phil. 4:6, 4:12. From these verses, we can see that Paul did not use the phrase with a sense of absoluteness or totality without exceptions.
The Ideal in Marriage is Ongoing Oneness
Paul doesn’t clarify or specify what he means by “in everything” in Ephesians 5:24. We need to use our own wisdom and common sense to understand his meaning. And it helps to bear in mind how he uses en panti elsewhere in his letters and to understand his overall aim in Ephesians 5:22–33. (I take it as a given that Christians are to be led by the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible.)
I propose that “in everything” in Ephesians 5:24 has a general, broad, and also a continuing sense of “in all spheres or areas of life.”[6] Paul was not speaking about an occasional action, but an ongoing commitment and general disposition that fosters unity.
Husbands, likewise, are to wholly and continually give themselves for their wives in a way that fosters genuine unity: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her” (Eph. 5:25 cf. 5:1–2). Paul wanted this submitting and giving of our lives to our spouse to be mutual and reciprocated (cf. Eph. 5:31). The head-body metaphor that he uses in Ephesians 5:23, 28–30 is primarily about unity.
Note that Paul had an ideal husband and wife relationship in mind when he wrote Ephesians 5:22–33; he was not suggesting, let alone mandating, that either husbands or wives put up with foolishness or abuse.
Parameters and Limitations to Submission
Paul’s instructions about submission are usually qualified in some way to do with Christ or God; there are parameters and limits to it. Paul wanted a kind of submission that was “out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21), “as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22), “as the church submits to Christ” (Eph. 5:24), “as is fitting in the Lord” (Col. 3:18), and “so that the word of God will not be maligned” by non-Christians in Crete (Tit. 2:5).
But what does it mean to be submissive?
Being submissive is normal Christian behaviour that is mentioned several times in Paul’s and Peter’s letters in the context of various relationships (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5 NKJV).[7] Being submissive isn’t just for wives or women, and it’s not just for marriage. It is unjust that many Christians and churches have emphasised, exaggerated, and embellished wifely submission and neglected other New Testament instructions for submission.
I propose that submission in Christian relationships means “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.
Some say that a wife’s submission is primarily about agreeing with her husband’s decisions. This is a contrived idea that is not hinted at in Ephesians 5. The only time Paul mentions couples making decisions, he says that decisions should be made mutually (1 Cor. 7:5). A wife acquiescing to her husband as the supposed tie-breaker, on the infrequent occasions when a significant decision needs to be made, is not what Paul meant by wives submitting to their husbands “in everything.”[8] Furthermore, the idea that the husband, but not the wife, has final-decision-making power is dangerous in abusive relationships and not needed in healthy ones.
Wifely Submission and Christian Relationships
Whichever way we understand the three passages in Paul’s letters that mention wifely submission (Eph. 5:22–24; Col. 3:18, Tit. 2:4–5), they do not override or outweigh the numerous “one another” verses about Christian relationships.
Here’s a sample of these “one another” verses in Paul’s letters: Rom. 12:10, 16; 13:8; 14:19; 15:14; 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; Gal. 5:13; 6:2; Eph. 4:1–2; Eph. 5:19–21; Col. 3:12–17. And let’s not forget that Paul’s words to wives and husbands in Ephesians 5 are prefaced with an instruction for mutual submission: “submitting to one another in reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21).
We mustn’t take a few verses in the New Testament, such as Colossians 3:18 (“Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”), and not also take into account other New Testament verses about Christian relationships.
Furthermore, we mustn’t apply biblical instructions mindlessly but with kindness and common sense, and with attention to the purpose and broader context of these instructions. Considering his words to husbands, as well as his overall aim of unity in marriage, Paul did not have in mind wives submitting to selfishness, foolishness, or abuse.[9] Wisdom and love should be part of our hermeneutic.
Conclusion
When Paul used the phrase “in everything” he was speaking broadly and generally. Too many Christians, however, have applied “in everything” in Ephesians 5:24 in an oppressive and domineering manner that does not fit with Paul’s tone throughout Ephesians 5 and does not foster genuine unity in marriage. Oppressing and stifling others is not what Paul wanted and it’s the opposite of what Jesus wants for his people.
After Peter had addressed wives and men, he rounded off his instructions with this exhortation. Paul would have approved.
Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing (1 Pet. 3:8–9a).
Footnotes
[1] Even though Paul did not mean it this way, the example of the church submitting to Christ has proven to be a low bar. The church has done plenty of things that are not in line with what Jesus, who is perfect and loving, wants. It has got a lot of things wrong and done numerous heartless, wicked and violent acts. And yet some parts of the church expect wives to be completely compliant to imperfect, flawed husbands.
[2] Paul may have tempered his words because some elite women who outranked him were in his original audience. We know there were elite wealthy people, including women, associated with the church in Ephesus (Acts 19:31; 1 Tim. 2:9-20; 1 Tim. 6:17–19). I acknowledge, however, that the letter to the Ephesians was a circular letter and meant for several congregations in Asia Minor.
[3] “Thing” is often implicit in the meaning of the neuter of pas = “everything.”
[4] In Ephesians 5:24 and the 14 examples above, en panti isn’t followed by a noun in the same phrase. Here are the other 11 occurrences of en panti in Paul’s letters that are followed by a noun: “in every place” which Paul uses idiomatically (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Tim 2:8), “in every word” (1 Cor. 1:5b), “in every good work” (2 Thess. 2:17; Col. 1:10), “in every way” (2 Thess. 3:16), “in every season” (Eph. 6:18), “in all the world (Col. 1:6), “in all the will [of God]” (Col. 4:12). In most, if not all, of these verses, en panti is used with a general and relative sense.
[5] “In everything,” with the same meaning as in Ephesians 5:24 but with slightly different language in Greek, also occurs in Colossians 3:20 (kata panta), which is about children obeying their parents in everything, and in Colossians 3:22 (kata panta), which is about slaves obeying their (male and female) masters in everything. Titus 2:9, which is also addressed to slaves has en pasin which is the plural of en panti. (Here are most of the other verses where Paul uses the neuter plural en pasin: 2 Cor. 11:6; Eph. 6:16; Phil. 4:12; Col. 1:18; 1 Tim. 3:11 NIV; 2 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 4:5; Tit. 2:10.)
Again, Paul is speaking broadly and generally. Even though “obey” is a stronger verb than “submit” and children and slaves had less agency than many wives, Paul would have expected children, especially grown children, and slaves to use wisdom when obeying their parents and masters where possible.
[6] Today we sometimes use English words such as “everything” and “always” in an expansive but imprecise and general sense that doesn’t come close to “everything” and “always” in their strict senses. The same was true in first-century Greek, as shown in Paul’s “in everything” verses in the article above.
[7] Rarely a week goes by that I do not see someone on social media or in an email asking what submission means in Ephesians 5:22–24, or what the parameters are of submission. My observation is that many Christian women are deeply concerned about how to be obedient to Paul’s instructions for wifely submission.
In contrast, I’ve only ever had one person ask me about the nature and the parameters or limits of Paul’s instruction for mutual submission given in Ephesians 5:21. One person in a decade in comparison with several people each and every month. Why this disparity in numbers? Why are people concerned with understanding and obeying (and enforcing!) Ephesians 5:22–24, but less concerned about understanding and obeying Ephesians 5:21? There is something awry here.
[8] This faulty idea would mean that in some marriages, where there is no need for a tie-breaking decision, women would never have to submit to their husbands. My husband and I, for example, have always made decisions mutually, but I am submissive to him, and he to me.
[9] Neither, Jesus, Paul, Peter, nor any New Testament author tells husbands to lead or to have authority over their wives. Rather, Paul told husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25ff; Col. 3:19). And Peter told men to honour womenfolk (1 Pet. 3:7).
© Margaret Mowczko 2022
All Rights Reserved
Thank you to those who support my work. It is greatly appreciated!
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Image Credit
Photo by Maria Orlova (cropped) via Pexels.
Explore more
Paul’s Main Point in Ephesians 5:22–33
The Greek Grammar of Ephesians 5:21–22
A Note on the Mystery in Ephesians 5:31–32
Mutual Submission in Early Christian Writings
Jesus on Leadership and Community
Wifely Submission and Holy Kisses
Abigail: A Bible Woman with Beauty and Brains (who didn’t submit to her husband’s foolish and dangerous behaviour.)
A Note on “Everything I Ever Did” (John 4:29)
All my articles on Ephesians 5:22–33 are here.
All my articles about Paul’s use of kephalē (“head”) are here.
All my articles looking at Greek words in the NT are here.
James Pruch and I talk about Ephesians 5 and submission in a one-hour podcast here.
23 thoughts on “What does submission “in everything” mean?”
Having endured decades in a destructive marriage which all but destroyed me, it’s great to read solid sound advice on Scripture which was twisted in my past.
Now, after being single for 23 years, Father has called me to marry again! and I know His plan is healing. I will keep this insight and remain centered on Truth.
Thank you Marg for sharing your Wisdom .
Hi Belle. I honestly wish there wasn’t a need to write the kind of articles I write. I don’t understand why the church has complicated things and failed the simple mandate from Jesus that we love one another (John 13:34-35).
I wish you all the best in your new marriage.
Patriarchy is a controlling beast with a hunger that cannot be satisfied. From a few mistranslated verses in the Bible it has morphed into hundreds of rules for women to follow on how to be that perfect godly biblical wife that now endorses in some christian groups that men have the right and should discipline their “disobedient ” wives with spanking and other punishments. Whereas men have only 2 rules to follow, lead and breed. Religion suffers from something I call MALE PATRIARCHY BLINDNESS
What verses in the Bible are you referring too?
Thank You for writing this! I find that to often when im researching things related to submission, marriage and being a biblical woman i get told things like “submitting to him means that when he asks you to do something it is as if God himself is standing before you and you are to treat him like he is God. You will be held accountable for obeying him. He will be accountable for leading”. This was in reference to Ephesians 5:22. Or “submitting means not resisting him”. I cannot believe the garbage i’ve been fed and your work brings refreshing clarity.
Susie, I can’t believe some of the garbage we’ve been fed either, especially as much of it (in regard to wifely submission) is the opposite of what Jesus taught and demonstrated about what he wanted from his followers.
Thank you for sharing your scholarship and knowledge, especially with this passage which has been misused in the larger context of entire church bodies, and in the smaller, but sometimes just as painful context, as the individual Christian home.
For me, another aspect of Ephesians is that it is a prison letter, I think this means it had to get past a Roman censor to be allowed to send it to Ephesus. It was not legal to write in ways that were considered against Roman ideas of law and order, one aspect of that simplified was a strict hierarchy of a wife obeys her husband, a child obeys their father and mother, and a slave obeys their master. I think to a censor “submit in everything” sounds close enough to “obey” to pass scrutiny. But when one mediates on the whole teaching unit (as believers would do), a deeper meaning is possible to discern along the lines of mutualism.
Assuming Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians when he was under house arrest in Rome, I’m not sure the Romans were that worried about his mail, or were closely scrutinising every letter.
According to Acts, he had the freedom to accept visitors and speak freely. He also had the freedom, and access to resources, to write expensive long letters.
“For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!” (Acts 28:30-31 NIV italics added; cf. Acts 28:16f, 23).
His accommodation and relative freedom may imply that high-status and, therefore, powerful friends were looking out for his welfare and offering him protection from mistreatment and interference from Roman officials and officers.
Also, if Romans were suspicious of Paul’s ideas, I imagine they would have been more concerned with his words about the power and authority of Jesus the Messiah (Eph. 1:19ff; cf. Eph. 6:12ff).
And what Paul says to husbands in Ephesians 5:25ff is extraordinary.
Furthermore, we know from other ancient documents that prison guards were often easy to bribe. For example, Perpetua mentions in her diary, “the blessed deacons who ministered to us, and [who] had arranged by means of a gratuity [a bribe] that we might be refreshed by being sent out for a few hours into a pleasanter part of the prison.” The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 1.2.
What ancient evidence is there that Romans officials were routinely reading and censoring the mail of prisoners?
I’m so grateful for finding your work. I have long felt called to marry but have struggled terribly with relationships. I have recently started praying for the Lord to heal me from “whatever I need to be healed from” in order to be ready to marry and the Lord immediately led me to find your work. I am so relieved and refreshed and feel that, finally, the last shackles of growing up in a toxic patriarchal misogynistic religious system are coming off! I see now that I’ve felt unable to trust men enough to get into relationships because I thought I had to choose between giving away my sense of self to become a puppet-servant, or staying single. Praise God it’s not so! Thank you so much, your work has helped to heal the part of me that was stopping me from believing I could have a healthy Christian marriage!
Hi Emily, God doesn’t even want us to be puppet-servants in our relationship with him, and he’s God. He gave us a brain and abilities for a reason. I wish you well. God bless!
God has been so good, patiently leading me into a healthier relationship with Him, and helping me see it’s ok to trust my own brain and abilities. The more I know how much He values me the more I see how wrong (and toxic) my upbringing was. Thank again Marg, I truly appreciate it.
Hi Marg,
First, I just found your blog and am really appreciating your alternative thought. I have felt alone and alienated by modern Christian conservative culture and have always been hesitant to get involved in a church and feel that I can’t relate to other women or even be truly equally regarded by the men. I don’t feel that I can honestly question or express my opinion at most churches without judgment or be heard with openmindness. Christians love to fit people into nice black and white boxes, and do not like to deal with grey areas. People and reality are complex!
But anyways, I have a question that I am stuck on. Ephesians 5:23 makes it clear who should be the head of a household according to God’s design for the family: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” You don’t think this verse clearly states that the men should lead?
Hi Amanda, I’m really sorry that you’re feeling alone. I hear this a lot from women who feel they don’t fit in with the culture of their congregation.
Ephesians 5:23 doesn’t address the idea of who is in charge of a household. This verse is about marriage. Paul uses a head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5 to illustrate unity between husband and wife. It’s got nothing to do with who runs the home or family.
Also, the Greek word for “head” doesn’t have all the same meanings as the English word for “head” does. It didn’t usually mean “leader.”
https://margmowczko.com/overview-pauls-use-of-head/
As I often say, neither, Jesus, Paul, or Peter ever tell husbands to lead. Paul uses the word “love” six times in his word to husbands in Ephesians 5:25-33! Paul wanted husbands to love. He says nothing about husbands leading.
Here’s a short article you might be interested in:
https://margmowczko.com/ephesians-522-33-in-a-nutshell/
And here’s a longer one:
https://margmowczko.com/pauls-main-point-in-eph-5_22-33/
Helpful, considerate and lovingly put together, Marg. I’m certain the range and detail of your work on this site has been and is being profoundly beneficial to many.
So many of these verses and extracts make such life-giving sense when read in the context of a chapter or indeed whole book. It appears to me that Paul’s tendency on these few occasions he addresses spousal attitudes is to affirm each’s male or femaleness, whilst cultivating in each the same attitude of love, humility, and commitment. A husband should feel affirmed to channel the essence of his daily work into the love, health and flourishing of his wife, and a wife should feel affirmed to respect her husband, loving and submitting to him in a faithful way that affirms the good desires in him, as they continue to work together as one flesh (v.31), in the same respect as Christ and His bride.
My provisional thought for a few years now has also been that the distinction of the instructions has behind it the intent to defeat the specific sins each way between husbands and wives. I know some have connected 5:22-33 with the second curse in Genesis 3:16, and it’s certainly something I see merit in. Regardless of that link, the particular sinful tendencies of men to be selfish, pay insufficient interest to the needs of their wives, and seek their own glory using their wives as mere pawns for this (in various destructive ways) must be rejected by them laying down their lives and treating their wives as their own flesh; for women, the outworking of a lack of respect for their husbands, overly critical/negative words (which often tends to be the main complaint husbands have of their wives according to counsellors) and manipulation, must be equally rejected in respect and submission. Whether or not Paul was here addressing particular sins he’d had report of, I don’t know, but from v.17 of the previous chapter, even continuing into the next, he was clearly confronting different sins and their incompatibility with the new self in ‘God’s likeness’ (4:24). Incidentally, I wonder here if there was a hint of the potential for unfaithfulness on either spouse’s part, although I doubt Paul would be hesitant to say this if it was particularly prominent on his mind.
The fact that these verses have been used to justify sinful actions and attitudes speaks broadly to a lack of faith that ends up worshipping the letter above the spirit, ironically whilst adding things into the passage(s) that aren’t actually there. I think the most subtle of which now is the idea of wives submitting to “spiritual headship”, which is just eisegesis. There’s arguably an element of encouragement for the husbands to tie in the spiritual aspect with their love for their wives, but if there really is, it cannot be taken as a law with constituent observances. There are many, many cases of wives, especially in current times but definitely in Ephesus too, having more faith and true wisdom than their husbands. Such an emphasis on that kind of submission seems bizarre and obviously unhelpful. How often must such a lack of faith create a new law to be obeyed, instead of just every day seeking to turn our wills away from sin and towards the love of God?
Is ‘en panti’ different from ‘pas’? In Colossians 1:16, it looks like it means everything in its full sense.
Also, isn’t it obviously implied we shouldn’t give thanks for unworthy things?
Hi Jason, I’m not sure how much Greek you know, so allow me to state some simple things first.
en panti is the dative neuter singular form of the adjective pas with the preposition en. (en may be translated as “in, with, by, among,” etc, depending on context.) en panti is a prepositional phrase.
Colossians 1:16 has ta panta, twice, which is the nominative neuter plural form of pas with the article. panta, especially with the article, is often used as noun. ta panta can mean “all things.”
(As I state in the article, the idea of “thing” or “things” is often implicit in neuter forms of pas: “everything,” “all things.”)
However, context is always key when determining the force, extent, or nuances of a word. We are given more information which tells us the force and scope of ta panta in Colossians 1:16, especially as it relates to dominions. And this is different from the force and scope of en panti in 1 Thessalonians 5:18, for example.
One thing that pas in Colossians 1:16 and in 1 Thessalonians 5:18 have in common, is that the word only refers to good things. In both of these verses, pas does not mean “everything” in a completely full sense with no exceptions. Jesus only created (and sustains) good things and we are to give thanks for good things.
You asked, “isn’t it obviously implied we shouldn’t give thanks for unworthy things?” My answer is “yes!” It should be similarly obvious that wives aren’t required to submit to foolishness and abuse from their husbands. And yet, this is missed by too many Christians. The fact that many Christians insist on an unhealthy degree of wifely submission “in everything” is the reason I wrote this article.
Okay, that makes sense. I don’t know Greek, it’s just someone I know insists this word does mean ‘everything’, to justify authoritarian husbands. I wonder what motivates them to fight for this stuff in the first place.
Thanks Marg.
I think some Christians really believe it pleases God when the husband is the boss and the wife is subordinate to him. For some reason, they ignore the numerous verses about Christian relationships that mention humility and kindness and “do unto others,” etc, and they focus on and overemphasise the few verses that mention wifely submission.
These verses, and others like them, some of which I cite in the article, apply in all Christian relationships, including marriage.
In humility consider others better than yourselves. Each should look not only to your own interests but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:3b-4
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honour one another above yourselves. Romans 12:10
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 1 Corinthians 10:24
Be kind and tender-hearted to one another, forgiving each other just as in Christ, God forgave you. Ephesians 4:32
As God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience. Colossians 3:12
Submit to one another in reverence for Christ. Ephesians 5:21 cf. 1 Peter 5:5 NKJV
Happy 2023, Jason!
the big question about women submitting is–“to what degree?”
how far and to whom is a women to submit? and who gets to decide to what degree a woman should submit?
since churches vary in how they translate and apply and add to those verses on women submitting which would lead to confusion as a woman tries to decide how far to apply that verse
and what if the woman wins the million dollar lottery?
pat/comp believers hate it when i ask these kinds of questions– thsoe that require thought and research so that answers actually line up with the word of God.
I don’t think it’s about “degrees” so much. Unity is best achieved when a husband and wife are both committed to being loyal, to supporting and humbly serving each other, and to mutual cooperation. These are all outworkings of a general disposition of submission.
Unity is the aim of submission (cf. Eph. 5:31). Even in many secular texts, harmony, rather than subordination, is the aim of submission.
Here is a little trivia of how languages keep evolving and why people like Marg are so important to helping us learn and discern the major truths and the littlest nuances of Bible verse.
Since this article has to do with submission meaning submitting/obeying/giving in to someone who is “head” over us–here is a little bit of info on the word “headman” which we think of as the one we must obey or give in to as an authority over another.
“Headman”–today meaning in our modern vernacular–“the leader or boss”–has an interesting history.
The phrase dates from the late 19th -early 20th century arising from the carousel trade. –whole companies of talented artisans carved those beautiful horses and other animals that went on the merry go-rounds.
The actual carving of any one horse or other animal . was done in sections. No one person carved the whole animal. Usually the most skilled and talented artisan carved the head of the horse and thus he came to be called the “head man”–he may or may not have been the actual boss or owner of the actual factory but all the others needed to consult with him since the head of the horse, its size, decoration and position determined what the rest of the horse looked like hence the other carvers had to follow the lead of the “head man” so the whole finished horse would look unified, all the parts fitting perfectly together, the details of bridle, harness and saddle matching and in proportion.
Even though many hands went into making a complete carousel only the name of the man who started/owned the factory had his name on the completed carousel.
His Susan, that’s an interesting anecdote.
“Head” in Hebrew (rosh), Latin (caput), and German (kopf), which are all important languages for biblical studies, can mean chief person or leader, “the boss.”
This usage in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and also English, seems to have influenced the theology and biblical interpretation of influential European scholars in the middle ages and renaissance. And this happened well before the late 19th and early 20th century.
Richard Cervin has made this comment.
‘In the West, Latin has always been more popular than Greek, and until last century, Latin was the lingua franca of the scholarly world. Now the Latin word for “head,” caput, does have the metaphorical meaning of “leader” … Thus, for English-speaking theologians at least Hebrew, English and Latin all share ‘leader’ as a common metaphor for head, a metaphor which is nonetheless alien to Ancient Greek..
Cervin, “Does kephalē (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over,’” 87. (His italics)