Kephalē and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters

The Metaphorical Meaning of “Head” in Paul’s Letters: Part One

In Colossians 1:18, Paul writes:

[Christ] is the head (kephalē) of the church body of which he is the beginning (archē) the firstborn of the dead, so that he himself may be first in everything.

Paul’s main point in the passage where this verse comes from (Col 1:15-18) is to show that Jesus is the creator, source, origin and beginning of everything in the universe.  This includes Jesus being the source and beginning of the Church. Paul used the word kephalē (head) in this context – the context of source and origin.[1]

In English the word “head” has many meanings.  One metaphorical meaning of head is “leader” or “chief person”.  In English the “head” of an organisation is the leader, the top person.  In Koinē Greek, the Greek of the New Testament, the word kephalē (head) also has metaphorical meanings; however “leader” or “chief person” is usually not one of them.

Sadly, when Koine Greek stopped being used (around 300AD), the meanings of kephalē in Koine became little known, and so many Christians have wrongly assumed that the Greek word kephalē, in the New Testament, could mean “leader” or “chief person” as it does in Byzantine and Modern Greek.[2] [Note the screen shot near the bottom of this page.]

One compelling piece of evidence that kephalē does not usually mean “leader” in Koine Greek is that the LSJ, one of the most exhaustive lexicons of Ancient Greek, does not include any definition of kephalē that approximates “leader” or “authority”.  [The entire LSJ entry on kephalē  is here.]

Another bit of compelling evidence is found in the Septuagint, the 2BC translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek.  When the Hebrew word for “head” (rosh) meant a literal head, the translators translated rosh into kephalē.  However in Hebrew, like in English, “head” can also mean a leader or ruler.  In the instances where rosh meant a leader, in most cases, the translators did not use the word kephalē in their translation, instead they typically used the Greek word archōn (which does mean ruler or leader.)  It seems that most of the translators of the Septuagint knew that kephalē does not usually mean leader, ruler or authority.[3]  (I say “most translators” because not all the translators of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Koine Greek were equal to the task.  More on this here.)

Leadership or Loving Care?

Paul is the only Bible writer to say that the kephalē (head) of the woman is the man.  He says this twice: once in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and once in Ephesians 5:23.

1 Corinthians 11:3 is not about the marriage relationship.  Most English translations use the word “man” and “woman”, rather than “husband” and “wife”, to reflect this understanding.[4]  Nor is 1 Corinthians 11:3 about some sort of chain of command.[5]  The use of kephalē in this verse clearly has the meaning of “source”, a fact which several early church writers attest to.[6]  [More about 1 Corinthians 11:3 here.]

This leaves one verse. Ephesians 5:23 is about marriage. It amazes me that the Church has developed a strong and pervasive doctrine of “male headship” based on this one Bible verse.  (Note that nowhere in Scripture does it teach that the man is the “head” of the house.[7])

In Ephesians 5:23a Paul writes:

For the husband is the head (kephalē) of the wife as Christ is the head (kephalē) of the church, his body . . .

In the passage where this verse occurs (Eph 5:21-33), Jesus Christ’s lordship and authority is not mentioned, nor is there a mention of any sort of “husbandly authority”.  Paul does not tell the husbands to be leaders, or to be in authority, rather, Paul urges husbands to sacrificially love and care for their wives. Love and care, and even nurture, is the context of Ephesians 5:25-33, not leadership.  Husbands are to love and care for their wives as Jesus loves and cares for the church.  It seems that just as Christ is the sustainer and source (kephalē) of nurture for the church, the husband is to be the sustainer and source (kephalē) of nurture for his wife. [My article on Paul's Main Point in Ephesians 5:22-33 here.]

Authority or Association?

The concept of kephalē carries the connotations of kinship, association and connection.  A head is nothing without a body.  Moreover, the head and body have an affinity and are part of the same unit. (Cf Colossians 2:19.)  By way of illustration, Suzanne McCarthy points out that we can say that man is the ruler of dog, but we cannot say that man is the head of dog.  Man is not of the same genus or species as dog.  To say that man is the head of dog is just plain wrong, because man and dog are different.  Husband and wife, however, are not only of the same species but they are essentially equal.  This affinity and equality means that the husband can be the kephalē of the wife in the Greek metaphorical sense of the wordThis sense would have been understood by Paul’s predominantly Greco-Roman audience in Corinth and Ephesus.

Many Greek philosophers and writers, such as Plutarch, taught that husbands are the leaders and rulers of their wives.  In contrast, no Bible author, including Paul, has asserted that the husband is to be the leader, ruler, or authority of the wife.[8]  Rather than using any of the many Greek words which mean ruler, leader or authority[9], Paul used the word kephalē to highlight the connectedness of husband and wife.[10]  Paul wanted husbands to be connected and allied with their wives.  Likewise, Paul instructed  the wives to be cooperative, supportive and loyal – that is, submissive – to their own husbands.[11]  Paul wrote that husbands and wives should be joined, united, one flesh.  Unity, affinity, fidelity and equality are the ideals in Christian marriage.  These qualities were absent in many marriages in Greco-Roman society, so Paul found it necessary to write about the godly ideals of marriage in his letters.

Supremacy or Source?

Many Christians argue that men (and husbands) have primacy or supremacy over women because the first man was the kephalē, the source or beginning, of the first woman.[12]  However it is important to remember that the first man was entirely passive when the first woman was made. In fact, the first man was in a deep sleep and probably had no inkling that God was removing a part out of him and forming the first woman from it.

We give Jesus the honour and the praise for being the creator, sustainer and source of the universe.  Man, however, cannot take any credit for the creation of the woman.  The first woman, as well as the first man was created and made by God, through Jesus.  Moreover, both man and woman were made in God’s image and both were made to rule over God’s creation.

The Genesis 2 record does not reveal any hint of male privilege, primacy or authority by virtue of man being created first (despite what some Complementarians assert to the contrary.)  Nevertheless, the man was created first and this fact needed to be explained to newly-converted Gentile Christians, many of whom may have held to pagan myths about the creation of various men and women.  A faulty doctrine of the origins of mankind has the potential to  lead to other faulty beliefs, practises and behaviours.[13]  [My article on The Complementarian Concept of the Created Order here.]

Patriarchy or Mutuality?

Many Christians erroneously believe that the word kephalē conveys the meaning of authority, and they interpret Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 to mean that husbands have authority over their wives.  Some elaborate on their interpretation and understanding of kephalē even further and claim that husbands and fathers are the spiritual authorities in the home, and that wives and mothers do not have spiritual authority of their own.  Paul never hints at such a doctrine.  The only time the word for authority (exousia) is used in the New Testament in the context of marriage is in 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” In the following verse Paul adds, “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time . . .”

1 Corinthians 7:4-5 shows that, rather than the husband being the authority or decision maker, Paul expected husbands and wives to make decisions by mutual consent.  The notion that the husband is the arbiter to make the final decision or have the final say on a matter is contrived and simply has no biblical basis.

I have never understood why Complementarians believe that in marriage, when there are only two people – husband and wife – there needs to be a leader. Yes, larger organizations need leaders to function effectively, but a couple – where the husband and wife are truly equal – does not need one person to always be the leader and the other person to always be the follower.  Moreover, it seems ineffective (and unnecessary) to burden the husband/father with the primary responsibility of family life when he has a capable wife with whom he can jointly share the responsibility.

Culture and Conclusion

“Headship” is a term that does not appear in the Bible, yet the understanding of “male headship” (i.e. male authority) has been part of the Church’s dogma for centuries.  This is because many have interpreted Scripture while being influenced by the prevailing patriarchal culture.  God has tolerated patriarchy in the past, and he continues to tolerate it, but true equality and mutuality are the biblical ideals that Kingdom people should be aiming for.  “Male headship” and male primacy does not reflect the Gospel message of freedom and equality for all people.

The concept of “male headship”, as many have understood it, is absent from Paul’s letters and absent from the New Testament.  Instead, Paul and other New Testament authors sowed the seed ideas for a casteless Christianity where all people, regardless of ethnicity, gender or socio-economic status, are considered as equal; and no person, simply on the basis of race, gender or wealth, is either privileged or discriminated against (Gal 3:28).  Tragically, the Church has been blinkered by the culture of patriarchy and male privilege, and have been appalling slow to realise the gospel ideal of true equality.  It is time for the Church to take off their blinkers and take another look at what Jesus, Paul and others taught about men and women and marriage in the New Testament.


Endnotes

[1] Other verses which show that Jesus is the beginning, origin, source and instigator of creation:

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3).  

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him (John 1:10).

In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Hebrews 1:2).

[2] Our knowledge of Hellenistic Greek, which includes Koinē Greek, has improved dramatically with the discovery of large numbers of ancient papyri in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  (And more continue to be discovered.) These papyri have helped us to better understand the meanings and uses of many ancient Greek words, including the word kephalē.

[3] Though rosh is used 155 times as “chief” of a tribe or class in the Hebrew Old Testament, whenever this usage is translated in the Septuagint (LXX) the Greek is archōn or archēgos (ruler) rather than kephalē (with only four exceptions).  Since the overwhelming LXXusage is to translate rosh as “chief, ruler” with a word other than kephalē, and secular Greek usage lacks this meaning, it is likely that Paul’s use of kephalē carries another meaning than “chief, ruler.” Ralph F. Wilson   Andrew Perriman identifies 11 cases in the Septuagint where rosh, at first glance, may appear to mean leader or ruler, and is translated into kephalē.   Michael Kruse summarises Perriman’s findings here and here.

[4] The Greek word anēr means “man” or “husband”.  Context determines whether anēr should be translated as “man” or “husband”.  Most English Bible translations – the ESV being a notable exception – use the word “man” in 1 Corinthians 11 because this passage is not speaking about marriage, but about appropriate behaviour in worship, which includes observing gender distinctions.  Most English translations use the word “husband” in Ephesians 5:22ff because Paul is clearly speaking about marriage here.

[5] 1 Corinthians 11:3 says:

But I want you to realize that the head [i.e. source] of every man is Christ, and the head [source] of the woman is man, and the head [source] of Christ [or Jesus’ Messiah-ship] is God [or the triune Godhead].   

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is a tricky passage to interpret.  Both Complementarian and Egalitarian theologians agree that Paul’s intent here is difficult, if not impossible, to determine with any degree of certainty.  The real issue that Paul is addressing here, however, is propriety in worship, and not the husband and wife relationship.

While we don’t know exactly what Paul was referring to in this passage, we do know some things about the Corinthian Christians.  We know that the Corinthians were unruly in their worship services and that they were behaving in a way that could bring disrepute to Christianity.  We also know that the Corinthians had an over-realised view of eschatology.  It seems that they believed that the Kingdom age had fully arrived and that gender distinctions were no longer important.  It appears that they likened themselves to the (genderless) angels.  Moreover, it is very likely that the newly-converted Corinthian Christians may have had a view of the origin of mankind that was tainted with Greek mythology.  In view of their particular problems, Paul instructed the Corinthian believers to behave in ways that were culturally appropriate. And he explained to them the true origin of humanity.  Kephalē is used in 1 Corinthians 11:3 in the context of source or origin.

The word “authority” (exousia) is mentioned only once in this passage; in verse 10 where the meaning is that a woman should have her own authority upon her own head.  Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 11:11 Paul highlights the mutuality, interdependence and association of Christian men and women, “. . . in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.”   Source and origin, as well as respectable behaviour, rather than authority, are the issues in this passage.

[6] Several prominent early church theologians, uncluding Athansius and Cyril of Alexandria attest to “source” as  Paul’s main meaning of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Athanasius (296-373) Bishop of Alexandria, stated in De Synodis Anathema:

“For the head, which is the source, of all things is the Son, but God is the head, which is the source, of Christ.”

Cyril (376-444) Archbishop of Alexandria, in De Recta Fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam wrote:

“Therefore of our race he [Adam] became first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through Him have been formed anew unto Him unto immor­tality through sanctification in the Spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being. Yet he, though God by nature, has himself a generating head, the heavenly Father, and he himself, though God according to his nature, yet being the Word, was begotten of him. Because head means source, he establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore as God according to his nature, the one Christ and Son and Lord has as his head the heavenly Fa­ther, having himself become our head because he is of the same stock according to the flesh.”

Even Hierarchical Complementarian, Wayne Grudem – who argues that kephalē implies authority – concedes that:

“There are some texts which indicate that the physical head was thought of as the source of energy and life for the body, and therefore the possibility exists that the word kephale might have come to be used as a metaphor for ‘source’ or ‘source of life’. . .”

(Grudem, Wayne, “ The meaning of Kephalē (Head): A Response to Recent Studies” in Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Woman hood: A Response to Biblical Feminism, Wheaton, Il: Crossways, 1994, p467.)

[7] In reality, even Complementarian men (who believe that God has ordained them to be the leaders of their homes and wives) rarely lead or run their house and family; they leave much of the running of the household to their wives. (See 1 Tim 5:14 where, in the Greek, Paul actually uses the word oikodespotein in reference to wives. Oikodespotein literally means “to be the master of the house”.  The KJV translates this verse literally.)

[8] In Genesis 3:16 it says that one of the consequences of sin was that the husband would rule the wife, but this is far for God’s ideal.  In Esther 1:20-22 (esp. v22) the Persian king Xerxes decreed that husbands should rule their wives. Christians, however, should not take their cues for living from the curses and consequences of the Fall or from decrees of pagan kings.

[9] In I Believe in Male Headship, Gilbert Bilezikian writes:

“There are scores of references in the documents of the New Testament to leaders from all walks of life: religious leaders, community leaders, military leaders, governmental leaders, patriarchal leaders and church leaders. Never is anyone of them designated as head. A profusion of other titles is used, but head is conspicuously absent from the list. The obvious explanation for this singularity is that head did not mean “leader” in the language of the New Testament.”

[10] Paul also used the word kephalē (head) to show that the church, the body, was closely allied and had an affinity with Jesus Christ, the head.  [More on this in my next article which is about the Gnostic concept of kephalē in Paul's letters here.]

[11] I believe that Paul wanted all Christians, including husbands and wives, to be mutually submissive to each other (cf Eph 5:21).  And I believe that mutual submission is what Paul was aiming for in his teaching on marriage, but he did this in ways that men and women at that time could relate to.  Women were used to be told to be submissive, so Paul (and Peter) write plainly about this.  Paul (and Peter) use different words when asking for submission from husbands.  [My article on Submission in Marriage here.]

[12] Some argue that the man, or husband, may have more prominence than the woman because the source or beginning of something usually comes first and this position often has more prominence than other positions.  However, it is difficult to see how “prominence” fits with Christian ideals of humility, self-sacrifice, service, and the “first will be last” concept.

[13] There were many myths circulating in the Greco-Roman world about the creation of particular men and women, and the creation of men and women in general.  One heretical view, which was popular among the pagan population, was that the origin of women was independent of man.  This view had implications for the independence and non-mutuality of men and women.
A very different Greek myth was that the goddess Athena was miraculously “born”, or generated, as a fully formed adult woman from the head (kephalē) of Zeus. This myth, and a few others like it, show that the Greeks saw the head (kephalē) as being some sort of a source of life.
A Gnostic myth, that seems to have been causing problems in the Ephesian church, was that Eve was created first and that Adam was the once deceived. [My articles on 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context here.]

Instead of a variety of pagan myths about different ways that different men were created or generated, Paul writes that the source of every man is Jesus Christ.  And instead of a variety of pagan myths about the different ways that different women were created or generated, Paul points out that the source of the [first] woman was man (1 Cor 11:3).   The implication of this is that all men and subsequent women have a profoundly close kinship.

© 18th of September, 2011, Margaret Mowczko

Further Reading:

“Headship (kephalē) and Submission (hupotassomai) in Ephesians 5:21-33″ by Ralph F. Wilson here.

“The Meaning of Head in the Pauline Epistles” in Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible by Manfred T. Brauch here.

“Does kephalē (“head”) Mean “Source” or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature: A Rebuttal” by Richard S. Cervin here.

Below is a screen shot of a paragraph from Richard Cervin’s article where he states that lexicons for individual Greek authors (pre-classical, classical, and Hellenist authors) do not give “leader” as a meaning for kephalē. Note the last sentence in this paragraph where Richard quotes Dhimitrakou who states that “leader” as a meaning of kephalē is medieval.  That is, kephalē did not mean “leader” in New Testament times, but it did in medieval times.  Richard then goes on in his article to explain the reasons why most New Testament lexicons do have “leader” as a possible meaning.

Kephale_Richard Cervin paper


Related Articles

Kephalē and “Proto-Gnosticism” in Paul’s Letters
Who is the head?
LSJ Definitions for Kephalē
(1) Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:1-6
(2) Submission and Respect in 1 Peter 3:7-8
Bible Women with Spiritual Authority
Power Struggles in Christian Marriage?
Leading Together in the Home
(1) A Suitable Helper
(2) A Suitable Helper (in the Septuagint)
Paul’s Main Point in Ephesians 5:22-33

(258 total visits, 146 of them today)

Posted September 18th, 2011 . Categories/Tags: Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Marriage, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

153 comments on “Kephalē and “Male Headship” in Paul’s Letters

  1. TL says:

    Jonathan,

    So, you believe that Jesus Christ was only a human being, a human being that God chose and anointed to teach people about God, to heal, deliver in ways that had never before happened. Then God allowed this mere human to suffer the most gruesome death ever, and claimed that his suffering would pay the price for humanities sin. And of course God had to enable this human from birth to be able to never sin. Then God would resurrect this human in front of many.

    And somehow God would even give this mere human the power to empart the Holy Spirit to the disciples before he was resurrected. And then this human would sit at the right hand of God the Father. And this mere human would be worshipped by all the angels and all humans. And in the end of times would be coming back on a white horse to render Judgement for God.

    something like that???

  2. TL, let’s be clear on one point first. I came here discussing a completely different topic, since this page linked to mine. I did not come here to discuss or promote my personal beliefs. As I have also pointed out, this particular discussion was not started by me. Nor is it being perpetuated by me. I have Ashley asking me ‘So, what is your take on the following verses?’, and you asking me ‘So, you believe that… Something like that???’. And you wrote that after accusing me of trying to push my views on you. Please make up your mind if you want to know what I believe or not. If you don’t, then don’t ask me what I believe.

    * Echad

    No, echad does not mean ‘a plurality in unity, oneness’. It means ‘one’. I have already invited you to check the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (the standard professional Hebrew lexicon), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (I own all of them and can quote them for you in full). None of them contain the definition you’re claiming. What happens in marriage is that TWO become ONE. Here TWO means TWO and ONE means ONE.

    Don, you claim echad can be used for a plurality while yachid means ‘an absolute one’, and say ‘Jonathan does not know this’. But as we’ve seen, I can quote every professional Hebrew lexicon, and none of them say what you claim. I’ve also quoted the conservative evangelical scholar Robert Bowman explicitly contradicting your claim. It just isn’t true, it’s a folk definition made up by people who don’t know any Hebrew.

    * Jesus in the New Testament

    TL, you say ‘John specifically taught that Jesus was God in the flesh, and existed before, in the creation of the world’. Well let’s see.

    John 1:
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

    No mention of Jesus at all. Nor do we ever find the phrase ‘God in the flesh’ in the entire Bible.

    * Monotheism

    TL, you seem to be confusing the term ‘monotheism’ with ‘unitarianism’. Monotheism means THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Every Trinitarian I know of believes there is only one God, in three persons. If you’re a Trinitarian then you’re a monotheist. If on the other hand you’re telling me you believe in the Trinity but you ALSO BELIEVE IN OTHER GODS, that would surprise me greatly.

    Unitarianism is the belief that there is only one God AND THAT GOD IS ONLY ONE PERSON. I am a unitarian. You are not a unitarian. I am a monotheist, and Trinitarians are also monotheists.

    * “So, you believe that…”

    1. “So, you believe that Jesus Christ was only a human being…”

    Acts 2:
    2 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, A MAN…
    23 THIS MAN…

    Acts 17:
    1 because He [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by A MAN whom he designated,

    1 Timothy 2:
    5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, HIMSELF HUMAN…

    2. “a human being that God chose and anointed to teach people about God, to heal, deliver in ways that had never before happened.”

    Acts 2:
    2 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, A MAN clearly attested to you BY GOD WITH POWERFUL DEEDS, WONDERS, AND MIRACULOUS SIGNS that GOD PERFORMED AMONG YOU THROUGH HIM, just as you yourselves know—
    23 THIS MAN…

    Acts 10:
    42 He [Jesus] commanded us to preach to the people and to warn them that he is the one APPOINTED BY GOD as judge of the living and the dead.

    Acts 17:
    31 because He [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, BY A MAN WHOM HE HAS DESIGNATED…

    Note that Jesus did not heal in ways which had never happened, and his apostles healed people in the same way.

    3. “Then God allowed this mere human to suffer the most gruesome death ever, and claimed that his suffering would pay the price for humanities sin.”

    No he didn’t pay the price for humanities’ sin; I don’t believe in penal substitution, remember.

    4. ” And of course God had to enable this human from birth to be able to never sin.”

    No, Jesus had to learn obedience like the rest of us, but he learned it without sin.

    Hebrews
    8 Although he was a son, HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE THROUGH THE THINGS HE SUFFERED.
    7 And by being PERFECTED IN THIS WAY, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
    10 and he was designated by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

    5. “And somehow God would even give this mere human the power to empart the Holy Spirit to the disciples before he was resurrected.”

    Yes, just like God gave other humans the power to impart the Holy Spirit (Elijah, and the apostles).

    6. “And then this human would sit at the right hand of God the Father. And this mere human would be worshipped by all the angels and all humans.”

    Philippians 2:
    9 As a result GOD EXALTED HIM and gave him the name that is above every name,
    10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow —in heaven and on earth and under the earth—
    11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of GOD the Father.

    7. “And in the end of times would be coming back on a white horse to render Judgement for God.”

    Acts 10:
    42 He [Jesus] commanded us to preach to the people and to warn them that he is the one APPOINTED BY GOD as judge of the living and the dead.

  3. TL says:

    Jonathan, first I apologize for confusing monotheism with unitarianism. Of course you are correct on that. And thank you for explaining that you are a unitarian. I was confusing you with Oneness Pentacostalism. But you probably don’t believe in the Holy Spirit in the way they do either.

    I admit that I am not knowledgeable on the belief systems of Unitarians. What exactly is the purpose of becoming a unitarian? You say you don’t believe in penal substitution, so what in your thinking was the purpose of Jesus Christ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2009–2014   Margaret Mowczko | Powered by WordPress | Theme by Keep2theCode