A note to my readers: I wrote this in preparation for the past two sermons, (1) as a way of collecting my own thoughts, (2) to make a resource for those who wanted more, (3) to link it to my earlier study of 1 Corinthians 11, and (4) to pull the arguments all together from three separate sermons on husbands and wives into one place.
I wasn't sure going in how exactly I'd use it-- as a follow-up session summarizing everything, as a rough outline I'd broadly/loosely work off of in a third sermon, or as something I could email to those who wanted to pursue all of this in more depth. It's written to some degree in the format of a seminar paper, as one might find at an academic conference in biblical studies.
It ended up being something I had to write to make sense of all of it, and I learned a lot from the whole experience, and ended up in a different place-- and perhaps most importantly, ended up resolving to be a better, different sort of husband.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction:
Much of contemporary NT scholarship about the nature of the relationship between husbands and wives seems to be stuck in an unhappy, unsettled debate over the meaning of one single sentence in Paul's letters: "The husband is the head of the wife."
This paper attempts to resolve this debate by starting in Ephesians 5:15-33, and then working secondarily to 1 Corinthians 11. It argues that Paul is using a head-body metaphor to push husbands to love their wife-body, and wives to respect their husband-head who loves/cherishes/sacrifices for them.
I thought much of this paper was new, but I have apparently independently come to many of the same conclusions as R.S. Cervin, "On the Significance of Kephale ('head'): A Study of the Abuse of One Greek Word," (PriscPap30, no. 2 (2016): 8-20. In the end, it's only my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:3 that's perhaps new.
Cervin's article is available here:
https://juniaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Cervin-Sig-of-Kephale.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body:
In the endless debates between complementarians/mutualists and egalitarians/hierarchicalists, there are certain well-defined battles lines. Two of the key questions revolve around the word "head."
What does it mean that the husband is the head of the wife?
What does "head" mean?
The meaning of "head" is central to the debate because husbands are elsewhere never given a label that has connotations of authority or power. In churches, it's common to hear men called "leaders," or "servant leaders," or "heads of the house," but the NT itself doesn't do this. If "head" doesn't mean leader, it seems likely that complementarian approaches to marriage fall apart. Without the "head," they have nothing to hang their hat on, so to speak.
A search of lexicons, the Greek Old Testament, and classical Greek literature, has typically led scholars to conclude that there are four possible choices for the meaning of "head" when it's used in connection with husbands and wives. Head might mean "ruler," "source," "beginning," or "prominence." Possibly, there might be overlap among these four things, with head meaning more than one of those four things at once, but broadly speaking, those are typically considered to be the four choices.
Head as Ruler
Head clearly means ruler in three places in the Greek Old Testament. In Judges 11:4-11, the people desire Jephthah to be a ruler (?????, verse 8) over them, and in verse 11 that desire is fulfilled-- the people place Jephthah over them (?p' a?t???) as head (?efa??) and as leader (??????? ). In 2 Kings 22:44/Psalm 17:44, King David looks back on his life, and speaks of himself as being the head of nations.
He then elaborates on this in the next parallel line by saying that a people he didn't know "served" him. The significance of a few other references is debated [Jeremiah 38:7 (31:7); Lamentations 1:5]; Deut. 28:12-13, 43-44).
It's sometimes argued that "head" means "ruler" in Plato's description of Philadelphos as being the "head of kings" (Moses 2.29-30). However, as Cervin notes, Philadelphos is dead when this was written about him, and it's unclear how a dead king could rule over living kings. More likely, Philadelphos is remembered as being "prominent" above the other kings.
It should be noted that "head" as "ruler" is used exclusively, and only in three places, to describe political leaders in the Greek OT, and that it's never used to describe husbands. It should also be noted that Greek philosophers never use head to mean "ruler."
Head as Source
The evidence for "head" as source is more complicated. I find myself persuaded by Cervin (page 3 of his article) that the arguments for "head" as "source" are not actually that strong. There is famous fragment of a poem, The Orphic Fragment 21, which describes Zeus as follows: "Zeus is the head, Zeus is in the middle..." This is often taken to mean that Zeus is the source of all life. However, rather than take "head" here as meaning that Zeus is the source of all living things, it seems better to take "head" as "beginning." Zeus is the beginning; Zeus is in the middle; presumably, Zeus will be (in) the end." Similarly, Herodotus, in Histories 4.91, describes the "headsprings" of the Tearus as giving the best and most beautiful waters. This could just as easily be understood as the "beginnings" of the Tearus, without a focus on how all the water in that river is sourced from the "headsprings."
Head as Extremity (Starting-Point, or Beginning)
https://archive.org/details/JohnLydusOnTheMonthsTr.Hooker2ndEd.2017/page/35/mode/1up?view=theater
One of the most common meanings of "head" is extremity. One can describe the "head" of time (John Lydus 3.4, 12, see link above), the head of a mountain/tree/vessel, or the beginning point of a river (Liddell-Scott, Cervin). Something is the "head" when it comes first, or is at the top/extreme of something. In this sense, hypothetically, Adam could be described as the "head" of humanity.
Head as Prominence
The meaning of "head" as "prominence" has been nicely argued by Cervin. "Just as the head is the topmost part of humans' and animals' physiology, and due to the face that the head contains the organs of aisthesis (sense-perception), so the head is the most prominent part of our bodies. This notion of topness/prominence was then projected onto other objects, such as trees, mountains, and waves where the top is the most prominent part, especially at a distance" (pg. 3). Cervin is careful to note that notions of authority aren't inherent to "prominence" (contrast Wayne Grudem). "The top of a mountain, or the sources of the Tearus River do not possess authority over the mountain or river itself; 'authority over' is not even relevant in this regard, but 'prominence' is" (Cervin, pg. 3). Likewise, a celebrity might have prominence, without having any authority or power (Cervin). Basically, "prominence" is a better translation than "preeminence," which tends to have connotations of power and authority that "preeminence" does not.
Summary
In light of Cervin's article, we are left with the following situation: "head" very occasionally means ruler, it arguably never means "source," it can mean "beginnings," and it sometimes means "prominence."
When scholars have taken these possibilities back to Ephesians 5 (temporarily setting aside 1 Corinthians 11), and to the key sentence "The husband is head of the wife," they veer off into their respective camps.
Complementarians note that there is nothing in Ephesians 5 that suggests the ideas of "source," "beginnings" or "prominence" are in play. "Ruler" is the only one of those four that really works. The evidence for "head" meaning ruler is thin-- this meaning is never used in classical Greek literature, it's only used a few times in the OT, and never in connection with marriage. That said, "head" can mean "ruler," and "ruler" is the only one that works, so "ruler" wins by default. Husbands are described as rulers, and complementarians then work at softening the language, so that husbands become leaders who serve, rather than like King David who is served by those under him (2 Samuel 22:44).
When egalitarians/mutualists take these possibilities back to Ephesians 5, and the key sentence "The husband is head of the wife," they deal with it in different ways. The most effective response, arguably, is to point out how thin the evidence is for "head" meaning "ruler." They ask questions: "Are we sure we want to base our theology of marriage on a word? Are we sure that the Ephesians would even understand head to mean ruler?" Certainly, those who try to force the meaning of "source" on the text have been unable to persuade the majority of scholars (cf. Clinton Arnold's brief discussion in his Ephesians commentary, and his seemingly reluctant embrace of some notion of authority in the word "head").
The end result is that "head" language has become an unhappy, ongoing source of division, and scholarship (not to mention the church as a whole) looks a bit like trench warfare.
What I propose, is that there's a way out of this dilemma (I thought this was a brilliant, new insight, but Cervin argues this more capably than me. I'm happy that this is out there, but a little sad it's not new). There's a fifth meaning for the word "head." Sometimes, "head" means "head." A head can refer to the thing that sits on top of people's bodies, right above the neck.
When we turn to Ephesians 5:15-33, we see Paul creating an extended, sophisticated metaphor that's built around the nature of the human being as having a head and a body. Paul's metaphor can be temporarily stripped down (admittedly losing stuff along the way) into six main statements:
(1) My head takes care of my body.
(2) I take care of my body.
(3) I take care of myself.
(4) I love my body.
(5) My wife is my body.
(6) I should love my wife-body.
To speak of the head is a convenient way for Paul to talk about something that's distinct, but inseparable, from who I am. If you punch me in the head, I'll ask you, "Why did you hit me?" If you punch me in the body, I'll ask you, "Why did you hit me?" I'll ask the same question. I am my head. I am my body. At the same time, I have a body, and I have a head, as well. I am my body. I have a body.
Paul hangs on to the head language only until he's made his point that husbands and wives are one body, and that the husband's wife is his body. But what Paul ultimately cares about, and focuses on, is not the head. We get stuck on the head, but Paul is interested in the body. And when we read the passage, what we see is that the head language falls off, and all we're left with is the body. The sixth statement is the important one that Paul most wants to unpack-- I should love my wife-body. My wife is one with me-- one flesh with me. My wife is my body. My wife is distinct, but inseparable, from who I am. And since I love my body, and my wife is my body, I should love my wife.
Consequently, I propose that our opening questions that we bring to the text need to change. Instead of asking, "What does head mean?," we ought to ask three questions:
(1) "How does Paul unpack his head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5:15-33?
(2) What do these verses tell us about the relationship between a human head and a human body?
(3) How does this relationship help us understand the relationship between a husband and wife, who are one body?"
When we do this, we reach the following conclusions:
(1) There is an essential unity between heads and bodies. As a rule, heads are attached to bodies. When a man and a woman get married, they become one body. One flesh (Ephesians 5:31). Likewise, we, the church, have been united with Christ. We have become one with him through baptism.
(2) The head has the responsibility of loving the body to which it's attached. Most of what the head does every day, it does for the sake of the body. When we look at the actual verbs Paul uses, we find language about loving, nourishing, cherishing, and sacrificing for the body. We don't find language about ruling, or leading, or guiding. To be the head is to care for the body.
(3) To speak of a husband and wife as head-body is a convenient way to describe a unity in which the wife is distinct, but inseparable, from the husband. Paul wants the husband to view the wife as being part of himself, and love his wife-body. That's the point of the metaphor, from the husband's perspective.
(4) The reason why a wife is called to submit to her own husband is because he is her head. This doesn't mean that she submits because her husband is her ruler/leader. She's called to submit because her husband-head loves and cherishes her as his body. Her husband lives sacrificially toward her because she is his wife-body. It's for this reason that she is called to submit. From the wife's perspective, that's the point of the metaphor. A wife's husband loves her by cherishing her and sacrificing for her, so she should treat him with respect.
(5) In the end, husbands and wives both "submit" to each other, putting themselves under each other (Ephesians 5:21), in different ways. Paul defines "submission" in Ephesians 5:33, in his summary instructions to husbands and wives. Wives submit to their own husbands by treating them with respect. Husbands submit to their wives by loving them.
Using Ephesians 5 as a starting point for 1 Corinthians 11
It's at this point that we are well-positioned to turn to 1 Corinthians 11. Broadly speaking, I've found Lucy Peppiatt's book Unveiling Paul's Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, along with her later nuancing of her approach, both helpful and convincing. Peppiatt argues that in 1 Corinthians 11, that Paul is interacting with a Corinthian slogan/position. Basically, Paul at a couple places quotes their position, which Paul himself finds problematic, and then corrects that position in different ways. It's widely accepted that Paul does this elsewhere in the letter; Peppiatt's brilliant insight is that this explains 1 Corinthians 11 as well. Critically, she argues that most or all of verses 4-10 are the Corinthian position, which Paul quotes, before disagreeing with it starting in verse 11. Broadly speaking, I found her argument persuasive, and I still do. However, I think I can perhaps improve upon her argument slightly with respect to verses two and three.
Let's begin with a translation of verses two and three:
(2) Now, I commend you,
because all the things of mine [=all I taught] you remember,
and just as I handed over to you the traditions, you adhere firmly.
(3) Now, I wish you to know that of every man/husband, the head is Christ. ["of every man/husband" is focused, I think. Also, possibly, "Christ."].
Now, the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife.
Now, the head of the Christ [is] God.
Peppiatt is correct in noting in verse 2 that Paul is clearly interacting with a Corinthian statement, and with something that Paul himself taught. I think she's also correct that in verse 3, Paul begins the process of fixing something that they've twisted. There's three statements in verse 3, each of them marked off by a "de" (Now,) statement that advances Paul's argument (cf. Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek):
(1) The head of every man/husband is Christ.
(2) The man/husband is the head of the woman/wife.
(3) The head of Christ is God.
It's how these three statements relate to each other, and what they mean, that causes scholars all sorts of issues. Partly, this is due to ambiguity in the Greek. Is statement #2, in particular, addressing marital relations-- husbands and wives? Or is it addressing gender relations-- men and women? The other key issue, is what the meaning of "head" is here. It's very difficult to argue that "head" means the same thing consistently all the way through all three statements, without coming to a theologically questionable conclusion about the nature of the Trinity (and here again, Lucy Peppiatt handles that part well). Lucy is also probably right that this inability to maintain the same meaning for "head" all the way through is part of the point. The Corinthians are using "head" language in a way that doesn't work. And Paul brackets #2, which is used problematically, with #1 and #3 to show that the Corinthian position doesn't work.
So here's my maybe original contribution to the debate (given the volume of scholarship produced, it's hard to be sure of anything anymore):
Let's assume that what Paul taught the Corinthians was what he taught the Ephesians. Paul used this carefully nuanced, sophisticated metaphor of head-body to encourage husbands to love their wife-body as themselves.
The "head" language in Ephesians is a metaphor, and the other ways that "head" is sometimes used in Greek to mean ruler, beginnings, or prominence, are a distraction from the metaphor.
So that's what Paul taught the Corinthians.
The Corinthians then take Paul's carefully nuanced metaphor, and they extend it in what's actually a pretty sophisticated but flawed way by adding a Genesis-rooted argument from creation (less charitably, the Corinthians turn Paul's metaphor into a bumper sticker, and twist the meaning in the process).
So Paul taught, the "husband" is the head of the "wife."
The Corinthians take the same exact Greek sentence, and they say this:
"The man is the head of the woman."
On top of extending things from husband to man, and wife to woman, they also stop taking "head" as a metaphor, and instead use it in a classical Greek sense to mean "beginnings" and "prominence." They do this by rooting their argument in a particular reading of Genesis. Basically, (1) "man" alone is made in God's image in Genesis 1:27, (2) "man" is made first in Genesis 2:7,and (3) woman is made for man. As a result, (4) man is more important, and woman is secondary.
Paul responds to the Corinthians' arguments in several ways. (1) He minimizes the significance of woman being "from" man (verse 8), by saying that men come through women (verse 12). (2) He refutes the idea that man takes prominence in the sense that he alone is made in God's image (verse 7), and that woman was made for him (verse 8), by saying that neither is anything without the other (verse 11). On this, Lucy is again correct and brilliant.
So my unique contribution, I think, is that I'm explaining #2 a little more clearly. What I'm less sure about, is how #1 and #3 relate to #2:
(1) The head of every man/husband is Christ.
(2) The man/husband is the head of the woman/wife.
(3) The head of Christ is God.
For sure, at least part of the idea in #3 isn't that God is the beginnings of Christ. Jesus is the preexistent Word, who co-existed with God. On that basis alone, Paul is able to dash cold water on the Corinthian position. "Head" can't mean what they think. That said, does #3 mean God is more prominent than Jesus? That God the Father is prominent, in the same way that husbands are more prominent? If that's the case, what would that mean?
Alternatively, does God being Christ's head mean that God rules over Jesus, in the same way that husbands are called to rule over their wives? This reading is fiercely debated, and it seems to be the single question that has become the strongest argument for a patriarchal/hierarchical/complementarian view of marriage. "Husbands rule over wives, as God rules over Jesus."
Peppiatt argues that this view of the Trinity is deeply flawed, and that Paul says #3 because the Corinthians would realize at once that it's deeply flawed. "Of course God doesn't rule over Jesus, so of course "head" can't mean authority/rule/prominence/beginnings."
The best argument in defense of Peppiatt's approach would be one that works backwards from men-women to God-Jesus, playing with verse 11. Woman isn't independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. And there's a mutuality to their relationship (verse 12) as well. This is basically how things work with God and Jesus. God and Jesus aren't independent of each other. There's a mutuality to their relationship, and a connectedness.
Perhaps #3 is using metaphorical language like Paul did for husbands-wives in Ephesians 5, showing the unity of God and Jesus. Perhaps saying that God the Father is the head of the Jesus-body is a way of saying that they are distinct, but inseparable. I don't know. Any Trinitarian talk seems difficult, and it's far from my strength.
The one thing that's absolutely clear, because the alternative is heresy, is that "head" can't mean "beginnings." The Word was with God in the beginning.
What of #1?
"The head of every man/husband is Christ."
This statement is one that Paul does seem to unpack in verse 11, at the start of his own response to the Corinthian argument. "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor man independent of woman."
"In the Lord."
So the Corinthian men want to see themselves as king of the hill, but Jesus is above them. And in Jesus, men and women are mutually connected and dependent on each other. Here, Paul uses their "head" language/meaning against them.
So if we put it all back together in order, what are we left with?
In #1, "The head of every man/husband is Christ," Paul begins by relativizing male status, as being under Jesus, using "head" in the way the Corinthians do. At best, the Corinthians are faced with the reality that they are no more than middle management, below Jesus (and leaving unsettled temporarily, is whether they are above women). So they are taken down at least one notch immediately.
In #2, Paul sets out the problematic Corinthian slogan/summary statement, which has been twisted and extended in bad ways from what Paul originally taught.
In #3, Paul probably shows that using "head" in this way falls apart. God is not the beginnings of Jesus, and arguably, God doesn't rule over Jesus. They have a different type of relationship than that, and certainly that's not the basic fundamental aspect of their Father-Son relationship. There's a mutuality and interconnectedness between God and Jesus, much as there is between men and women.
Paul then goes on, starting in verses 4-10, to summarize their argument, before demolishing it starting in verse 11. I don't think I have anything unique to add to Peppiatt's approach here, but I'll briefly give a summary, beginning with a translation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The Corinthian argument I've italicized, and it runs from verse 4-10:
(2) Now, I commend you,
because all the things of mine [=all I taught] you remember,
and just as I handed over to you the traditions, you adhere firmly.
(3) Now, I wish you to know that of every man/husband, the head is Christ. ["of every man/husband" is focused, I think. Also, possibly, "Christ."].
Now, the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife.
Now, the head of the Christ [is] God.
(4) "Every man/husband praying or prophesying, having something on his head, shames/ disgraces/dishonors his head.
(5) Now, every woman/wife praying or prophesying with an uncovered/revealed head, shames/ disgraces/dishonors her head.
For one and the same, she is, with the one having been shaved.
(6) For if a woman/wife doesn't cover herself, her hair should also be shorn off.
Now, if it is shameful to be shorn or shaved, she should cover herself.
(7) For, on the one hand, a man must not cover his head,
the image and glory of God being.
Now. on the other hand, the woman, the glory of the man/husband, she is ["the glory of the man" is focused].
(8) For man isn't from woman, but woman from man.
(9) For indeed/also, a man wasn't created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.
(10) For this reason, the woman must have [a symbol of] authority upon her head, because of the angels/messengers."
(11) Nevertheless, neither is the woman apart from the man anything, nor is the man apart from the woman anything in the Lord.
(12) For just as the woman [is] from the man, in the same way the man [is] through the woman.
Now, all things [are] from God.
(13) Among yourselves, judge.
Proper, is it, for an uncovered woman to pray to God? ["Proper" is focused, and possibly also "to pray"],
(14) and doesn't nature itself teach you
that a man, on the one hand, if he has long hair, a dishonor to him it is? ["a dishonor" is focused].
(15) Now, a woman, if she has long hair, glory to her it is? ["glory/honor" is focused]
because her hair in place of a mantle/covering, it is given ["in place of a covering" is focused].
(16) Now, if anyone decides, quarrelsome/contentious, to be, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
So the Corinthian church has five main arguments that Paul addresses:
(1) An argument from marriage, and traditional Roman dress, and adultery (verse 4-6).
(2) An argument from Genesis 1, with "man" alone being made in God's image (verse 7). "Man" is too glorious to cover. Women, on the other hand, image men, not God.
(3) An argument from Genesis 2: women are created from man (v. 8).
(4) A second argument from Genesis 2: women are created for men (v. 9).
(5) An argument from either Genesis 6, or from missionary concerns ("because of the angels/messengers"; which would be really clever for them). (v. 10).
Basically, they argue that man is superior, that creation is built around man, and that man should rule over woman, a husband over his wife. Man alone is king.
Paul responds to these arguments with a series of arguments:
(1) Women and men are nothing apart from each other in the Lord (v. 11).
(2) It's true that woman came from man, but in the same way, men come through women (v. 12). There is a mutuality and interconnectedness between men and women. We need each other, and we are nothing apart from each other.
(3) Ultimately, all things are from God (v. 12).
(4) Nature teaches that women (also) have glory (v. 14).
(5) No church anywhere forces women to wear head coverings (v. 16).
Once Paul's arguments and the Corinthians' arguments are distinguished, the end result is the following conclusions:
Men and women together are made in God's image, and are God's glory and likeness.
Men and women together have dominion over the earth.
Men and women together are free to serve God, and worship Him, and pray to Him.
Men and women are interdependent. There is a mutuality, and interconnectedness, among men and women. We need each other, and we are nothing apart from each other.
Women shouldn't wear head coverings. Women are not second class citizens in God's kingdom. They don't need to wear something to show they are inferior, because they're not.
