What Does 'The Husband Is The Head Of His Wife' Really Mean?

One of the key reasons it took me so long to write about the subject of women in ministry is because it is a very complex and sensitive area of the bible. I love the women in my life (my mother,, daughter, sisters cousins aunts and nieces) so much that I wouldn’t want them to be taken advantage of or abused in any way. If they asked me the hard questions relating to why women cannot be elders in church and why a woman cannot be the head of her husband in marriage, I wanted to make certain that my answers would be grounded in truth. To do that I had to do a lot of research on what the most prominent egalitarian bible scholars had to say on the subject. This is despite me being a complementarian, which is the view that I believe lines up with scripture. The only certain barrier to truth is the belief that you already have it. I had to approach this with an open mind, and I wanted to make sure there was nothing important and true that I might be missing from the egalitarian camp.

Egalitarian Pushback On Interpretation Of The Word Head

It's undeniable that the Bible explicitly teaches that a husband is the "head" of his wife. While church history has pretty much always believed this means the husband is the primary leader in the marriage and household there has been serious resistance against this view from egalitarian scholars in more recent years. They say complementarians misunderstand what the word head means especially since it is translated from the Greek word “Kephale”. When the bible says head or Kephale in Greek it means something different to what most people think it means. When most people talk about the issue of women in ministry, they say things that would imply the removal of authority structures in marriage but they do not talk about marriage. For example, they would talk about church leadership which radically affects most people because it talks about marriage but they will not talk about the marriage part. I think it is very important and I will discuss it in this blog.

 A recap on what egalitarian scholars believe.

Egalitarians believe in the equal value and dignity of men and women, advocating for equal opportunities and roles in church and society. They argue that biblical passages often cited to support patriarchal structures are either misinterpreted or taken out of context.

A recap on what complementarians believe

Complementarians, on the other hand, believe that men and women have different roles and responsibilities, often citing biblical passages that describe men as leaders and women as supportive partners. They argue that these roles are complementary, not hierarchical, and that both men and women are equal in value and dignity.

And A Brief Look At The Patriarchal View

The patriarchal view can manifest in ways that prioritize men's authority over women, often limiting women's roles and opportunities. This perspective might:

- Restrict women's participation in church leadership or decision-making

- Emphasize women's submission to men in all areas of life

- Interpret biblical passages as mandating strict gender hierarchies

Examples of countries that practice strong patriarchalism are Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. In these countries some of the cultural norms result in severe restrictions on women barring them from participating in many mainstream jobs. Until 2018, Saudi Arabia did not allow women to drive. I am personally very opposed to this view because of the following;.

Jesus Restored The Dignity Of Women When It Was Counter Cultural To Do So

Notice how Jesus restored the dignity of women when it was counter cultural and counter intuitive to do so in that era. He turned the Samaritan woman at the well into an evangelist. He forgave the woman caught in adultery by showing that none of her accusers were sinless. At a time when women’s testimony was worthless, Jesus allowed a woman Mary Magdelene, to be the first person to see Him after His resurrection.  Despite the fact that she was a woman her testimony forced the community to accept her account of the resurrection because it was true, Thus, my answers regarding women in leadership at home, in church and in society at large  should align with God’s word.

 The main verses we are exploring for this topic are:

1 Corinthians 11 v 3  but I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5 v 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Husband is “head” metaphor does not denote authority say egalitarians

There are four claims that egalitarians make that refute the use of head as a metaphor for authority. These arguments are

Ø the Medical claims,

Ø the church history argument,

Ø the bible study argument

Ø the Greek Lexicon study argument.

Medical Claims

The bible was written for us but not to us. What did first century Jews believe was the function of the head during that era? There were many who believed that the head was the source of life for the body. Source as implying that Eve was formed out of the rib of Adam. That was the sense in which head was used by Paul.  According to egalitarian scholar Rebecca Groothuis, author of “Good News For Women – A biblical Picture Of Gender Equality” the heart was typically seen as the governing canter of the body. Here is a quote from her book:

An understanding of the head as the supplier of life to the body is clearly the sense in which “head” is used in Ephesians 4 and Colossians 2 which describes Christ as the source of life, health and strength for his body the Church.

This is a very strong historical claim and yet there are no footnotes at the end of the chapter or book so it’s hard to check who her sources are. She is saying for normal people in that era, the head was the source of life and the heart was the command centre of the body. Many other egalitarians refer to a scholar by the name of Stephen Bedale who wrote a short journal article in the Journal of theological studies of October 1954 titled The meaning of “Kephale” in the Pauline epistles. So, the idea that Paul’s application of “head” did not in any way imply authority emanated from this article where modern day egalitarians are concerned. Bedale says using the head as a metaphor for one who has authority would be unintelligible to St Paul and his readers. In Paul’s day according to popular psychology in both Greek and Hebrew a man reasoned and purposed not with his head but with his heart.

Essentially that quote captures the theme of the entire book. Another egalitarian scholar – I am referencing the most celebrated, highly revered and decorated egalitarians only – Philip Payne author of “Man and Woman One in Christ” says the following;

The ancient Greek world exemplified by Paul’s use of “head” commonly believed that the heart not the head was the centre of emotions and spirit, the central governing place of the body. But how far true was it that this was the consensus in ancient Greek thought? Philip Payne appeals to a passage by Plato (a famous Greek Philosopher and student of Socrates) that he (Philip Payne) claims Plato affirms the idea that the heart instructs and controls the body while the head is the source of life as in providing nutrients and nourishment. But this is not accurate, upon reading the same passage I found that Plato said the exact opposite of what Philip Payne asserts.  After careful analysis of Plato’s point of view I found that I was not the only person that arrived at that conclusion. Other complementarians who will not just take Philip Payne’s word for it also think he is factually wrong. Here is a paraphrased version of what Plato actually said: “The heart is situated near the head so that it is forced to listen to the citadel of reason, so that the passions of the heart won’t overly influence the decision making of the head”. Elsewhere Plato goes on to say the lungs are there to cool the passions of the heart when they rise so that the head retains the final say. (see footnotes)

What did Hippocrates think about the subject?

Hippocrates was an ancient Greek physician, often called the "Father of Medicine," who lived from approximately 460 to 385 bc. He wrote the following: “Neither the heart nor the diaphragm has any share of intelligence, but it is the brain which is the cause of all the things I have mentioned” (the reasoning, the will, the decisions taken, the actions).

Payne is basing his interpretation of scripture off factually false claims about history that most ordinary humans have no ability or time to research. Imagine the people that have read Philip Payne’s book and believed the false information contained in it. To say that these are mistakes would be avoiding the truth. A scholar of his stature cannot make so many mistakes.

Another very influential person who was a contemporary of Paul, called Rufus of Ephesus a lecturer of Anatomy and Physiology had this to say;

“The processes springing from the brain are the sensory and voluntary nerves through which feeling and voluntary movement – in fact all the activities of the body – are carried out.” In other words, all the choices that a human makes that he acts upon emanate from the brain. Rufus’s opinion was important because he taught anatomy and Physiology at the end of the first century ce. Such opinion was surely known in Asia Minor which was famous in antiquity for its advanced medical science and excellent medical schools. Pergamum, Smyrna, Laodicea and elsewhere, the places that Paul is writing to. The information above seems to support complementarian views. All the egalitarian scholars that I have referenced are sadly being very misleading, inaccurate and wrong in what appears to be selective usage of historical quotes, not careful and objective analysis of facts.

Conclusion on the medical views of the head

During the time of Paul writing to the Ephesians saying the husband is the head of his wife all the medical evidence seemed to indicate that the prevailing view was the head metaphorically was used to denote authority. It seems clear from the text that even in the few cases where head may be interpreted to mean source it almost always also includes head to mean authority.  Why egalitarians all seem to agree in suggesting that it was a popularly held view among people of the 2^nd temple era that head meant source ONLY and that there was never a case in which Paul’s use of Kephale meant authority is because this is obscure data that ordinary people would never know.  There is no way a common person in the US or in Western Europe, much less in Africa would know about the medical views of first century medical practitioners. Most of the egalitarian scholars are counting on the latter to distort certain information by deliberately omitting vital facts or by exaggeration.

End Of Part One

Next week we shall pick up from the Church History Argument. Catherine Kroeger, a very influential egalitarian bible scholar, author and founder of Christians for Biblical Equality rejects the idea that the bible' implies leadership or authority in its use of the Greek word ''kephale' which is translated head in English. She even quotes a Church father John Chrysostom to defend her argument. But the question is, was her interpretation of what Chrysostom said, accurate or misleading? Do not miss part two of this topic to see what the truth is and what God's word says regarding this topic.

Footnotes on the above passages

Plato’s passage which refutes Payne’s claims (where Plato speaks on this again) http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...

Stephen Bedale’s overly influential little paper on kephale from 1954 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23953502