Better Together Bible Study - Paul and Headship

This is part of a series of studies written by Rev Dr Kevin Giles. Republished with permission by the author. Find the other studies here In some evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal churches the leadership of men, usually referred to as 'male headship', is of huge importance. I have heard preachers say, ‘The headship of the man is taught from cover to cover in the Bible; nothing is more important in understanding the male-female relationship.' One English Baptist theologian, David Pawson put this view succinctly when he titled his widely read book, Leadership Is Male.[1]

Today, those who speak emphatically and regularly of male 'headship', apply this principle only to the home and the church. They say that men and men only are to be in charge of a congregation and preach and in the home, men should make all the important decisions and take ultimate responsibility for all that happens. They never say anything about 'male headship' in the wider society even though for centuries, Christian theologians taught that men were to lead in all spheres of life: the home, the church and society. And what is all the more perplexing today is that those who teach that men should be the leaders in the church and the home say this is the creation order. If it is a creation ordering of the man-woman relationship should not men, and men only, be leaders in all spheres of life - all of creation, as it was once universally believed?

Leaving aside this pressing and never answered question, let us concentrate on two other questions:

1.    Does the Bible teach that the leadership of men is the God-given ideal?

2.    What specifically does the Bible say on the topic of male
'headship'?

Does the Bible put men in charge? The biblical case for equality briefly outlined:

1.    Our study of Genesis chapters 1—3 (study 2) showed clearly that there is no textual support for the super-ordination of men and the subordination of women before the fall.
Genesis 1:26-28 makes it clear that in God's good creation, man and woman stood side by side in dignity, leadership potential and with the same family responsibilities. The text of Genesis explicitly makes the subordination of women a consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:16). If this is the case, then the subordination of women, as far as the creation narratives are concerned, is not the God-given order. It is the fallen order or reality, and for this reason should be opposed by Christians.

2.    In studies 3 and 4 we saw that the Gospels make the same point. As far as Jesus, our Lord and master is concerned, men and women have the same dignity and worth and the same leadership potential.

3.    Luke says that on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out on men and women and men and women then spoke in the power of the Spirit (Acts 2:17-18). Luke is indicating that now the Messianic age has dawned, in the new creation, men and women are alike empowered to speak in God's name. They stand on an equal footing before God and in the church.

4.    Paul likewise insists that because believing men and women have received the Holy Spirit, men and women can lead God's people as the Spirit empowers them (1 Cor. 11:4-5, 12:7). Thus he has women leading as apostles, prophets, evangelists and as house church hosts and supervisors.

5.    In Galatians 3:28, Paul says 'in Christ... there is neither male nor female’, not meaning that sexual differentiation is obliterated in Christ but rather transcended. In the first place, Paul is here speaking of equality in salvation, but the apostle makes it quite plain that equality in salvation should show itself in social relations in the life of the church. Every believer should be equally valued and honoured and given the opportunity to use their God-given gifts of leadership.

6. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 the Corinthians asked Paul whether or not to marry as the end was near. In answering the question, Paul's overall argument is not easy to follow because he takes up a range of issues and does not want to get his questioners offside. What is crystal clear, however, is that Paul has a countercultural, egalitarian view of marriage. In twelve instances, the opportunities, rights and privileges of the man and the woman are made exactly the same (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10-11, 12-13, 14, 15, 16, 28, 32-34). In each of these references he addresses men and women as equals. The most revolutionary comment is found verses 3-6. Paul says, ‘The wife does not have authority (exousiadzo) over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority (exousiadzo) over his own body, but the wife does.' In these startling words, Paul places husbands and wives on an equal footing as far as their sexual relations in marriage are concerned. This is highly significant because the sexual side of marriage reflects the relationship itself. It is symbolic of the one-flesh union. In this passage, Paul balances the authority the husband has over his wife's body with the authority the wife has over her husband's body. Paul does not give any special rights to men. Like Jesus (Matt. 19:3-8), he sees men and women in marriage having joint responsibilities and privileges. Against a cultural backdrop where women were viewed as owing sexual duty to their husbands, Paul's ruling is startlingly countercultural.However, it is not only this comment on sexual relations in marriage that is so exceptional, Paul's fully symmetrical and egalitarian understanding of the dynamics of the marriage relationship seen throughout this chapter have no parallel in the ancient world.

7. Another important text is 1 Timothy 5:14. Here Paul tells wives to 'manage their households'. The Greek verb translated by the NRSV as 'manage', oikodespotein, is a very strong word, literally meaning a ‘house despot’. In the first century, in both Greek and Jewish culture, women were in charge of the home: men were in charge in the public domain. What makes this comment so fascinating is that while Paul in Ephesians speaks of the husband as the 'head of the wife' - not as the head of the home as many believe and hope (Eph. 5:33), in 1 Timothy 5:14, Paul speaks of the wife as the leader/boss/head of the home. This observation is a very telling warning about reading our personal and cultural understandings of home life back into the text of scripture, a document reflecting home life very foreign to our own.

The word and concept 'headship' Having heard the term 'headship' so often in evangelical circles, it comes as a surprise to discover that this word does not appear in the Bible and that my Concise English Dictionary does not even list the word. In all the Bible, the Greek word kephale, usually translated 'head’, is only found twice in reference to the male-female relationship (1 Cor. 11:3 and Eph. 5:23). These observations immediately bring to our attention that the huge emphasis on male ‘headship', common to so many churches today, does not have the same emphasis in the Bible or in everyday speech in the wide community.

In the Bible, the vast majority of the uses of the word kephale/head, refer literally to the top part of the body, the cranium. However a number of metaphorical or figurative uses of this word can also be found. As in English, the figurative or metaphorical usage of the words kephale or head can have a range of meanings, and the context is always the key to a right understanding. In English, possibly the most common metaphorical meaning of 'head' refers to leadership, i.e. Bill Smith is the head of the brick works. However in Greek, kephale/head is less commonly used as a metaphor for leadership and we should certainly not presume this meaning Just as in English, kephale/head may refer to 'source' or 'origin', such as the head of a river.

1 Corinthians 11:3 Virtually all commentators agree that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is one of the most difficult passages in Paul's writings. It is as if Paul is in dialogue with himself and the Corinthians, trying one argument after another to convince them that when men lead in prayer and prophecy in the church, they should have their literal head uncovered and women their literal head covered. To make his case, the apostle puts forward a number of arguments for what must be seen as a cultural norm no longer applicable today.

It is to be carefully noted that in this passage, the husband-wife relationship is never in focus. Paul is addressing the question of what 'any man' and 'any woman' (vv 4-5) should or should not have on their head when leading in worship. Also it should be noted this is not a Trinitarian passage, as the Spirit is not mentioned.To begin his case, Paul says that Christ is the metaphorical head of 'every man', man the metaphorical head of woman, and God the metaphorical head of Christ (v. 3). Then, on this basis he reasons that for a man to cover his literal head, or a women not to cover her literal head, when leading in worship, would dishonour his or her respective metaphorical head. Those who believe Paul is here setting men over women in the church argue that the apostle is speaking of a fourfold hierarchical order: God-Christ-man-woman. But this is not the case. Rather he speaks of three-paired relationships not given in the order expected if a hierarchy was in mind. (The pair, Christ-man comes first: God-Christ comes last.) The hierarchical interpretation builds on the contested premise that the Greek word kephale (head), when used metaphorically, always means 'head over’, or 'authority over'. We may agree that kephale, metaphorically used, may mean 'head over' or 'authority over', but it does not follow that it must mean this in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Indeed, the context suggests this is not the meaning because Paul immediately speaks of women leading in church, and in verse 10 he speaks of the 'authority' (exousia) the woman has on her head. It is not plausible that Paul would first speak of man having ‘headship’/authority over women in verse 3 and then immediately in verses 4 and 5 affirm that men and women may lead the congregation in prophecy and prayer. Thiselton, who carefully studies the issue, concludes that in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 that Paul 'plays on the multiple meanings' of kephale and that whatever kephale means in this context, it does not denote a relation of subordination or authority over[2]. More recently, Philip Payne has shown conclusively that kephale when used metaphorically in the Greek Old Testament and other non biblical sources often means 'origin' or 'source'[3]. This meaning makes the most sense of verse 3. God is the source of Christ and man/Adam is the source of woman/Eve, an idea that Paul refers to in verse 8, only to qualify himself in verses 11-12.

Ephesians 5:21-33 Ephesians 5:23 is the only other text in the whole Bible to speak of the man as the head/kephale. To properly understand what Paul is saying, we must focus primarily on the whole passage as one developing argument, noting carefully what Paul actually says and does not say, and taking full account of the historical context in which he wrote. Paul was writing to Christians in a cultural setting that assumed the subordination of woman. Thus, when Paul asked women to subordinate themselves to their husbands, designating the husband as the 'head' of his wife, no one in his day would have let uneasy or threatened. What would have caused unease, if not anger, was his appeal to men to love their wives ‘just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her', and to ‘love their wives as they love their own bodies’. No one, save possibly Christ had ever suggested anything like this. This was revolutionary teaching. It subverted patriarchy by asking men to give themselves in sacrificial service for their wives.

In our cultural setting today, in contrast, many Christians feel very uneasy, even threatened, when they read or hear verses 22-24, exhorting wives to be subordinate and telling them that their husband is their ‘head’. For us moderns it is these words that are countercultural.

If these contrasting cultural settings, each with their taken for granted norms, are not acknowledged and openly confronted, this text cannot be rightly understood.

Verse 21 Verse 21 is transitional. It completes the string of imperatives that depend on the verb in the exhortation ‘be filled with the Spirit' (5:18). Paul believed that when Christians are filled with the Spirit they will sing and make melody, give thanks and subordinate themselves to one another. Verse 21 also introduces what Paul wants to go on to say about the marriage relationship in verses 22-33.

Paul's exhortation, ‘Be subordinate (hypotassesthai) to one another out of fear/reverence for Christ' tells Spirit-filled believers how they are to relate to one another. He exhorts all Christians, men and women, as those set free by the Spirit, to defer to and humbly serve one another. This is distinctive Christian teaching. Pagan writers of Paul's day held that grown men should stand their ground. Subordination was for slaves, women and children. What is more, the Old Testament does not commend humility, or self-denial, or subordinating oneself to others. The idea that humility and self-denial are virtues is found first in the words and example of Paul's own master, who said of himself, I am gentle and lowly in heart' (Matt. 11:28-29). Paul asks Christians to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'. In other words, to please Christ who exemplified such behaviour.

Verses 22-24 Paul now instructs Christian wives what the universal Christian virtue of subordination means specifically for them. In verses 22-24, he begins, ‘Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.' The verb needed for this sentence is supplied by the participle in verse 21. Like what is said in verse 21, this is an exhortation. Paul asks Christian wives, set free by the Spirit, to voluntarily subordinate themselves to their husbands. He is not saying, ‘You are a subordinate person', or, 'God has assigned to you for all time a subordinate role.’ Rather Paul asks women to freely submit themselves to their husband.

The reason a wife should submit to her husband, Paul says, is because ‘the husband is the kephale/head of the wife' (v. 22). Here Paul could be using kephale metaphorically to mean either ‘leader'/'boss' or 'origin'/'source.' The lexical meaning of this word in this verse, however, is not an issue. On hearing Paul speak of the man as the kephale, most of his hearers would have thought first of the husband as the boss, because this was their cultural assumption. This understanding of the word would have been reinforced when they heard Paul add that the wife should submit to her husband. Paul, in speaking of the man as the kephale, allowed his readers to think at first that he was simply reinforcing what they already believed - men should be in charge. It was only as they read on that they found Paul was giving entirely new content to what it means for the husband to be the kephale, a reinterpretation of the concept that in the end implied subordinating oneself in sacrificial loving service for one's wife, as we will see.

In speaking of the husband as the head of the wife and in his exhortation to wives to be subordinate, Paul never mentions a supposed hierarchical creation order that sets out a God-given ideal where the man has authority over his wife. What is reflected in this passage is the cultural order of that time, an order where men were set over women, an order Paul is trying to subvert but not openly oppose.

Verses 25-32 Following on the three verses addressing wives, Paul addresses men for eight verses because his main concern is to challenge men to think in a more Christian way about marriage. He does this by redefining the ‘headship'/ leadership of the husband in a Christian marriage. It is not privilege, not greater responsibility, not having the final say and not being the one whom the wife serves. He does not say to men, 'Rule your wives’, but, 'Love them like Christ loved the church and gave his life for it.' By defining headship in this way, Paul indicates that the Christian husband is to give himself unreservedly in sacrificial agape-love for his wife. What he says to the women was passé. What he says to the men of that day was and is revolutionary. The Greek verb used for love, agapao, is the noblest and loftiest word in the Greek language for love. We understand its meaning through the self-sacrifice of Christ who ‘loved (agapao) the church and gave himself up for her' (v. 25). This kind of love is not an emotion but a way of behaving.Verses 28-29In verses 28-29, Paul explains more fully what the love of the husband for his wife entails. In the same way [as Christ loved the church] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church - because we are members of his body.' How much did Christ love the church? Enough to give his life for it. In asking husbands to exercise agape-love to their wives to the point of giving their life for them, Paul asks something of men no one else had ever dared ask men to do before, as far as we know. He did not say marry someone you love, or love your wife with romantic (feeling) love, or sexual love (eros), but be loving in the most costly way.

Verse 31 Having made this point, Paul moves beyond thinking of two people in interaction, beyond ideas about reciprocal duties, to the most mysterious reality of human existence, the oneness of husband and wife. At this point he quotes Genesis 2:24, a text which Jesus also quoted to explain marriage. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' (v. 31). So complete is this unity, says Paul, that a man who loves his wife loves himself (v. 28). She is part of his being. Paul's authority for this view of marriage is Christ himself (Mk 10:8). Note that Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 not to prove female subordination but the opposite, oneness in marriage.

Verse 33 Paul concludes with a summary verse. ‘You men love your wives; you women reverence your husband.'

Ephesians 5:21-33 says absolutely nothing about how couples make decisions or who has the casting vote. What is more, Paul never says, 'the husband is the head of the home’, whatever we may think of this idea.

Some make a lot of the fact that Paul gives different instructions to husbands and wives, wives submit; husbands love, and they say these directives cannot be reversed because they are gender specific. In reply much can be said. First, Paul asks all Christians to subordinate themselves one to the other. This must include husbands to wives as well as wives to husbands. This primary rule is not gender specific! Second, surely Paul expected wives to love their husbands, although he never asked them in this passage to do so. If this is the case, then love of one's partner is also not gender specific; it is a mutual obligation. And third, it would seem that Paul is not making contrasting demands, one to wives and another to men.

True, he asks wives to submit and husbands to love their wives to the point of giving their life for them but can these two things be contrasted and divided? I suspect Professor Andrew Lincoln has got it right when he says that here Paul sees, 'submission and love as two sides of the same coin - selfless service of one's marriage partner.’[4]

The reply that marriages would not work unless someone has the final say is hardly a serious objection, or one with any biblical warrant. Yes, armies need generals, ships need captains, and businesses need managers, but good marriages are more like friendships. To have a friendship does not require that one party makes all the major decisions or has the casting vote. Indeed such a rule would destroy most friendships. The truth is that most couples find that with lots of talking and much prayer, given time, they can come to a common mind on even the most difficult matters.

Headship then and now To conclude, it is important to point out that today there are a range of understandings of male headship among Christians, not just two opposing positions. I outline them but it is recognised that within each position there are variants:

• One view is that Paul is teaching, and the whole Bible implies this, that men are the leaders in the home and the church. They should make all the major decisions and women should obey. In the home the finances and the discipline of the children is their responsibility. Those who take this position insist that headship means 'authority over' and this authority must be complete because Paul told wives to ‘be subject to your husbands in all things' (Eph. 5:24). This is called 'strong patriarchy' and there are many evangelical books that put this position very starkly, spelling out clearly what women can and cannot do. Men inclined to be controlling are very attracted to this understanding of headship.

• More common is what is called 'soft patriarchy'. On this view the husband is the servant leader in the home but his headship/leadership takes a sharp edge when a couple cannot come to a common mind; then he has the casting vote. This view is usually not operationally different to the one that follows because so many happily married couples say that they have always been able to come to a common mind.

• Many egalitarians have a very similar view but leave out the casting vote idea. They note that Paul speaks of a distinctively Christian understanding of male 'headship', where the man serves his wife even to the point of giving his life for her. They too stress that the leadership envisaged is servant leadership and they see nothing in the text at all about who makes decisions, even difficult ones. In reply, some say, ‘But does not this position suggest that men have some vague and undefined leadership in the marriage that the wife does not share?'

• Finally, there is the view that the distinctive Christian vision of marriage arising from this text is one characterised by mutual subordination and mutual agape-love. Christians who reach this conclusion see Paul in his cultural context trying to transform patriarchy. They thus reason that given an egalitarian cultural context the trajectory Paul set should be followed. Selfless service for one's spouse is what is distinctive and primary in Christian marriage for the man and the woman. This is the binding understanding of Ephesians 5:21-33 for the approximately one billion Roman Catholics prescribed by Pope John Paul II in his 1987 encyclical[5]. Contemporary Christians who seek to make mutual subordination and mutual love the guiding norms for their marriage find this very challenging but hugely rewarding.

Questions for discussion

1. How do you understand Paul's words, 'the husband is the head of the wife?? Invite each person in the group to respond.

2. Of the four understandings of headship outlined above, which should the modern day Christian couple seek to follow and why?

3. To make a marriage work, must the husband always have a casting vote?

4. How could the teaching that the man is the head of his wife, her manager/boss, encourage men to leave all the hard work in a family up to the wife?

5. A godly, intelligent wife who lived for the first 13 years of her marriage under the strong headship of her husband gave this testimony. ‘I came to a crisis point. I did not know who I was. I could not make a decision for myself.' What other effects can strong headship in a marriage have on a wife? What effects do you think strong headship in a marriage can have on a husband?

6. Research has shown that churches that teach strong headship have a greater incidence of wife abuse. Does this suggest that controlling men can hear 'headship' teaching as justifying male dominance in the home? If so, are they hearing St Paul correctly? How can the church be a force against abuse in the home?

7. It is often argued that each couple must work out their relationship with each other as there is no one blueprint that applies for every marriage. What do you think of this suggestion?

[1] David Pawson, Leadership is Male (Croworough, East Sussex, Highland Books, 1988)

[2] The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000) 820.

[3] Man and Woman, 113-139

[4] Word Commentary on Ephesians Waco, Word, 1990) 393.

[5] Mulieris Dignitatem: On the Dignity of Women, 82-85

KG Better Together - PAUL and headship.pdf

Download PDF • 169KB

Rev Dr Kevin Giles (Th.D.) is a graduate of Moore Theological College, Sydney and has completed post graduate study in England and Germany. He was in parish ministry for forty years in various ways; associate minister, church Planter, university chaplain, rector of a large multi-staff parish, and in "rebirthing' an inner city church. He has published widely on what the Bible says on the church, ministry, women and the Trinity. He writes with a passion to see the renewal of the church.