1 Corinthians 11:3 and “head”
May 27th, 2007 by Cheryl Schatz
In the last post I summarized the foundational points from chapter 10 that is necessary to the understanding of chapter 11. If you haven’t read it already, it can be read by clicking here. In this post I will continue our verse by verse discussion from 1 Corinthians 11:3. I will be using the New American Standard Version for most of these posts unless otherwise indicated. I Corinthians 11:3 -
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul commended the Corinthians for holding firm to the traditions that he had delivered to them and now Paul is going to help them to understand some of these traditions. In the fall of 2006 I heard a Pastor give an excellent sermon on the traditions that the Jewish people hold to this day that actually symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus even though they do not even know what they are doing with their traditions. At Passover they take a piece of unleavened bread and fold it into a white napkin and then they hide it in their house for 3 days. When the 3 days are over, the children look for the napkin and when they find it they bring it out and uncover the bread. They keep the tradition but never understand what the tradition is all about. The tradition of the unleavened bread in the white napkin being revived after 3 days is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. In verses 2 and 3, Paul says that the Corinthians were holding to the traditions that he gave them but he wanted them to understand what the traditions meant.
There has been much scholarly debate about the meaning of the word “head” in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Some have given a meaning to “head” as “authority over another person” or simply “boss” as in a hierarchal order. Others say that “head” means source or origin. However the only way that we can know for sure is to read the context surrounding verse 3 as well as to pay close attention to the inspired word order regarding “head”.
In verse 3 Paul sets up the order of the relationships that he lists in a very unusual order if he had meant a hierarchal ordering. If we come to the passage with the presupposition that God has completely inspired it including inspired words, inspired grammar and inspired word order, then we can clearly see a different pattern presented. If Paul had wanted us to believe that he was constructing a hierarchal ordering, then he made a grave error. He should have listed man as head of woman first, then Christ as head of men second and lastly God as head of Christ. The hierarchy would be woman at the bottom with man over her, Christ over all men and God over Christ.
Yet this is not the way that the word was inspired. Instead we have Christ listed first as head of all men, then the man head of woman, then God head of Christ. In this ordering we have God as Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end and an ordered list of origins. In the ordering we have Christ as the origin of all men, the man as origin of woman, and lastly Jesus Christ (as the one born through a woman) having his origin through God.
It isn’t just the order that tells us that “origins” not “hierarchy” is the meaning of the word “head”. The context of the passage also tells us that Paul is referring to our origins.
1 Corinthians 11:8 says:
“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;”
Here Paul teaches about the origin of woman. Woman originates from the man. This fits perfectly with verse 3 where the man is the “head” of woman.
1 Corinthians 11:9 says:
“for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”
Here again Paul is referring to origins and the reason for the woman’s origin.
1 Corinthians
“For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”
Paul repeats the fact that woman originates from the man (remember that Paul said that repetition is for our safety – Philippians 3:1) and he sums it up by saying that all things originate from God. This is the Alpha and Omega of origins. Christ is the source of all men (He is the Alpha) and God is the source of Christ (the Omega). All things begin and end with God as the ultimate source.
However if we are to interpret “head” as “authority over” or “boss of” in a hierarchal ordering we will find no repetition of this concept in the passage. In this passage Paul is silent regarding any authority that the man has over the woman or any authority that the Father takes over Jesus Christ. Why is that? It is because the interpretation of “head” as “authority” or “boss” is completely out of step with the rest of chapter 11 and it is something completely out of kilter with the subject of the passage.
If we interpreted it this way, we are left scratching our heads wondering what Paul could possibly mean by sticking verse 3 in amongst this passage. We could be left thinking, “What does authority or being boss over someone have to do with this passage? What has this to do with the price of rice in
Instead of trying to force the text to mean what we would like it to mean, we must let Paul define his own terms for himself. When we come to the passage with a hierarchal mindset, we miss Paul’s connecting the relationship of man to woman with the importance of origins. There is also more to see about the importance of origins that we will be discussing later on in the chapter.
The next thing that we need to pay attention to is the inspired words of verse 3. Here Paul uses the word for man twice which is “aner”. Let’s look at the second phrase…the man is the head of a woman. Now if we interpret it as “origin” or “source” as Paul repeats in verses 8, 9 and 12, we can understand that Paul is talking about the first man “the man” Adam and the first woman - Eve. Eve literally had her origin from the side of the man. Also wherever man and woman are placed in a relationship to each other in a biblical passage it is a sound practice to interpret this as husband and wife not just any man as head over any woman. That it is the husband that is the head of the wife is repeated by Paul in Ephesians 5:23 so we can know by repetition that this is what Paul is talking about. Paul said:
“For the husband is the head of the wife…”
Now the curious thing about this verse is that the inspired word used in the first relationship is that Christ is the “head” of every “man”. Man here is “aner” meaning a male or a husband and it is not the generic word for mankind. This is the inspired word used and it is not by accident that God has inspired it this way. If “aner” means husband in the second set of relationships, then we can logically give the same meaning to the first set of relationships where the very same term “aner” is used.
Christ then is the “head” of all husbands. Christ is the “source” or “origin” of all husbands. Now Paul is not saying that Christ is “head” only of men or husbands because Christ certainly is “head” of the wives too, but I believe that Paul is emphasizing a special relationship between Christ and the husband. We will talk more about the implications of this later, but for the time being perhaps you would like to give your thoughts on why God inspired the word “aner” to be used twice in verse 3 instead of the generic term for mankind that would normally include women.
Next post we will be discussing the cultural and spiritual “shames” that are brought about by the “head” relationships.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Hello Cheryl,
i was wondering, do you have a comment as to why there is a definite article for aner (the man/husband) but gunaikos (a woman/ wife)has none?
Do you see the ongoing use of these two greek words as best being translated husband and wife all the way through the passage?
In Christ,
Kerryn
May 28th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Just in follow up to the above, most (all?) major translations choose to translate aner as ‘man’, not husband.
I am also not sure that translating every aner and gunaikos ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ works in the passage.
Can we move from aner meaning ‘man’ (male), then to ‘husband’ and back do you think?
how would you tranlsate the passage - vv 2-16?
sorry - it’s late now - so i’ll do some more thinking on each specific verse and translation of these nouns over the next few days… not even sure if my qns make sense! feel free to ignore them if i am speaking gobbly goop!
(-:
Kerryn
May 28th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Hey Kerryn,
Once again you have great questions. Apparently the sentence structure implies “the” for woman. That is why the Analytical Literal Translation renders it:
Now I want you* to know that the head of every man is Christ, but [the] head of a woman [is] the husband, but [the] head of Christ [is] God.
Also we know that the “the” is implied in verse 3 because the repetition of this statement in verse 12 does use the word “the” before woman:
For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
Now the words “aner” and “gune” can mean either man or husband and woman or wife, but the context strongly shows it means the first man and woman who were husband and wife. If we don’t think of this as husband and wife (Adam and Eve) then is the man “head” of any woman? Can my husband claim to be the “head” of all the women in our congregation? This special relationship is not shown in scripture to be anything other than the one flesh union of husband and wife. No man is ever said to be the “head” of anyone other than his own wife. At the same time this passage is talking about origins and since the origin of the first woman is through the man, we should be able to also render this man and woman. The problem with just saying man and woman is that there are those who use this passage to promote male headship in the church even though this verse says nothing about the church or leadership of men. This verse has been used to teach that the elders of the church are to take the single women under their headship along with all women whose husbands are not Christians. The teaching of male headship in the church that is attached to any man and any woman and not in relationship as husband and wife is taking this passage out of context.
So yes, I do believe that this can be rendered man and woman, but I also believe that it is more accurate to translate this as husband and wife. The Amplified Bible is one that renders it this way:
But I want you to know and realize that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.
The ESV:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
The Messianic Renewed Covenant Bible:
But I want you to understand that the Head of every husband is Messiah, and the husband is the head of a wife, and the Head of Messiah is God.
Weymouth New Testament:
I would have you know, however, that of every man, Christ is the Head, that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ’s Head.
Young’s Literal Translation:
and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.
The point is that this passage is not teaching universal male headship outside of marriage.
As far as translating every “aner” and “gune” as husband and wife, the principle that I have been taught and have seen for myself is that every time these two are together in a passage where there is a relationship between the two, they are almost always universally rendered as husband and wife. Where there are exceptions such as 1 Timothy 2:12, the passage would make more sense in context if they are considered as speaking about a husband and a wife. In my view, this is the only way that 1 Timothy 2:15 can be made to make sense in the entire context of this passage. More on this later.
Lastly you asked if “wife” would be best to be translated through the entire passage of 1 Cor. 11. No because “gune” cannot be a wife when “the man” has his origin through her. In this case “the man” is not her husband but is her descendent. Much more on this later too in our continued discussion on 1 Corinthians 11.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for your helpful comments Cheryl, and taking time to answer my qns so thoughtfully.
In Christ
Kerryn
May 28th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Kerryn,
Boy I thought I was being thorough, but I forgot to include some of your questions that you posed earlier regarding verse 3.
You asked:
“further regarding v 3: what is interesting to also note is that paul does not explicitly refer to the 3 ‘pairs’ again - only the ‘pair’ of man and woman is used. for example, if v 3 was the ‘basis’ for the entire passage, then surely Paul would have said that man is the glory of ‘Christ’ (not ‘God’) in v 7, to link back to v 3?”
I believe he does refer back to Christ in that Christ is God. Christ is the head or source of man in that He is man’s creator. By starting with Christ and ending the pairs with God, there is an Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the conclusion to all of creation and that is with God. Christ himself is the glory of God as the wife is the glory of her husband. This is indeed a passage about glory and honor not authority and hierarchy as you so aptly had also pointed out.
Your question about verse 12 I will reserve for the time that we get there. If for some reason I forget, please remind me on that post
You also asked:
“what about Paul’s metaphorical use of ‘kephale’ (head) in Ephesians 1:10, 22; 4;15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10;19? can we assume that Paul is consistent or ‘repeating’ his use of ‘head’ in these other passages?”
Yes, I do think that he is consistent but also adding the head as source as in “source of supply”. In Col 1:18 Christ is the head and is said to be the “beginning”. Beginning clearly represents source. In Col. 2:10 it makes perfect sense to interpret it as the one who is the source of all authority and rule. It is Christ who created all things included all rule and authority and who sustains everything by the word of his power.
In Co. 2:19 the head is the one who supplies nourishment so it fits well with source. In Eph. 1:22, 23 the head is the one who “fills” all things. Again a good definition of what the source or origin does.
Eph. 4:15 we are to grow up into him. This isn’t a metaphor for authority but our source that we get our nourishment from and grow to maturity.
Eph 5:23 the head is the one who gives himself up for his body (wife). All of these things is what the head does as source of supply. He gives himself up to supply her with what she needs to grow and mature. There is so much in this passage that one could do a whole DVD on it
I think I got all the relevant questions for now. I am sure that you will have many more questions as we go along!
Warmly,
Cheryl
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
If you check BDAG, a well respected Greek lexicon, you will find that “kephale” never means “source” and has not been accepted as being so though out church history (including and especially when the church was chuck full of native Greek speakers who would know).
Furthermore the Louw-Nida, another highly respected source indicates that there is not even a word in the same word family in Greek as “kephale” that means “source”.
The whole argument is a rather recent innovation from Dr. Catherine Kroeger who misinterpreted what was said by John Chrysostom.
This article helps to put the issue in perspective:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Lawrence,
Apparently you didn’t read my article very carefully because you didn’t answer the fact that the meaning of a word is evident in its context. The context of 1 Cor. 11 is source or origin (beginning) and there is nothing in the context of “authority over someone else”. If you can find that in the context, then please show it to me.
You also do not mention that BDAG shows that “kephale” also can mean beginning. Source is a synonym of beginning and fits the context well.
I have read the early church father that was quoted by Dr. Kroeger and I do not see that she misinterpreted what he said. Can you please show the misinterpretation?
Dr. Joe E. Trull, editor of Christian Ethics Today, quotes Chrysostom:
“If you think ‘head’ means ‘chief’ or ‘boss’, you skew the godhead!”
Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria commenting on 1 Cor. 11:3 defines the head metaphor as source:
“Thus we say that the kephaleo of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleo of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise the kephaleo of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.”
Liddell & Scott’s leixon (which is also a very good one) lists kephale as:
11. 1 of things, extremity
a. In botany
b. In anatomy
c. Generally, top, brim of vessel … capital of a column
d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month).
Liddell & Scott do not include the meaning of “kephale” as a final authority or superior rank at all.
In the Hebrew, the word “rosh” (head) is used about 180 times with the meaning of chief or leader, however when the Hebrew was translated into the Greek in the Septuagint, the Greek term “archon” was the one that was chosen to mean leader, chief or authority and “kephale” was rarely used in this way. The main Greek word used to mean authority or ruler was “archon” which has a clear meaning of leader, ruler or commander. Out of the 180 times the Hebrew word for head means ruler or authority, only 8 times is the Greek word “kephale” used as a translation of “rosh” although both mean head and “kephale” would have been the simplest translation. This also shows that the main meaning of “kephale” is not ruler or authority. Since the translators rarely used “kephale” to carry the meaning of authority, this shows that the Greek term for “head” did not carry with it the same meaning of “head” in the Hebrew.
The key to understand Paul, is for us to see what Paul meant in the context because that is the deciding factor. Where does Paul reference a man’s authority over the woman or God’s authority over Christ in 1 Cor. 11? It isn’t in the passage so we can’t get the context of ruler or authority over from the context. However what is indeed in the passage is that the man is the source or beginning of the woman and God is the source or beginning of everything (including Christ). Certainly the term “beginning” or “source” is appropriate as Paul’s meaning from the context and the meaning of “authority” and “ruler of” are not supported by the context.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
What do you mean by:
Now Paul is not saying that Christ is “head” only of men or husbands because Christ certainly is “head” of the wives too, but I believe that Paul is emphasizing a special relationship between Christ and the husband.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
historyloveralways:
We can see from scripture that Christ is “head” of the entire church (both men and women) so although in 1 Cor. 11:3 Paul is emphasizing a relationship of Christ with men, we know for certain that he is not saying that Christ is head only of males since Christ is head of the entire church not just men. So just as Paul isn’t denying that women are the glory of God, he is not denying that Christ is also head of women in the body of Christ. We need to see these verses as Paul’s honing in on a specific relationship for a specific reason. Does that help to explain what I mean?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Cheryl:
‘Christ then is the “head” of all husbands. Christ is the “source” or “origin” of all husbands. Now Paul is not saying that Christ is “head” only of men or husbands because Christ certainly is “head” of the wives too, but I believe that Paul is emphasizing a special relationship between Christ and the husband. We will talk more about the implications of this later, but for the time being perhaps you would like to give your thoughts on why God inspired the word “aner” to be used twice in verse 3 instead of the generic term for mankind that would normally include women.’
I don’t have any thoughts on why Paul used ‘aner’ twice, other than I’ve taken Christ is the head of every ‘aner’ to mean every person instead of every husband. Did you cover more on this? I haven’t seen it if you have. I wanted to hear more about it if and when you have the time. That Christ is the head , ‘origin’ of EVERY ‘husband’ just isn’t clicking in my brain. From what I’ve been told, it can mean every person?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:09 am
No I don’t think I wrote more on this and I should do one more post when I get time.
Although I have heard that “aner” can also mean “people”, if that is the case, it would be an unusual meaning for the word that typically refers to a male or a husband. Paul also is very precise in his use of words so we should be able to assume that Paul (and the Holy Spirit) meant exactly what he said.
In 1 Cor. 11 Paul hones in on several very specific applications of a narrow view of a several wide application ideas in order to make a point. For example Paul says that the man is made in the image of God. Paul is not saying that the woman is not made in the image of God, but he highlights that the man is in the image of God to make his point. He also says that the man is the glory of God. Again he is making a narrow view of a wider application. The woman too is the glory of God but Paul has applied a narrow view to make a point. Lastly Paul also makes a narrow view of Christ being the head of the male (or husband). Since we know that Christ is the head of the entire body, we also know that Christ is also the head of the woman. Once again we see Paul take a wide principle and narrow it down to make a point. He is not excluding women in his points - he is focusing in on men for a reason.
So my question would be, why did Paul focus in on the men in this passage? What specific point was he making? I do not believe that Paul’s words are a mistake. There is a specific application to males here.
In the marriage relationship only the husband is called the “head”. The “head” and the “body” are vitally connected but they are not interchangeable. I agree that there is more to be said on Paul’s use of “aner”. I’ll put this one on my “to do” list.