2 Nov. 2023 |

What Does “Head” (Kephalē) Mean in Paul’s Letters? Part 1: Introduction

Preston Sprinkle

Introduction

On two occasions, the apostle Paul says that man (or a husband) is the “head” of woman (or his wife): 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. The texts read:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3 NIV)

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (Eph 5:23 NIV)

Many assume that “head” means “authority over, leader,” which would mean husbands/men occupy a kind of God-given position of authority and leadership over their wives (or women generally, or in the church particularly). But is this what Paul had in mind?

The meaning of kephalē (“head”) in these passages has been a matter of (oftentimes intense) debate within biblical scholarship for over 70 years.¹ And there have literally been thousands of pages published on the topic in articles, book chapters, and peer reviewed scholarly journals. I’ve done my best to comb through many of the best treatments of the topic, and am still working through the material. This post is the first of several that I’m going to publish on the topic in order to air out my current thoughts.

Please note: I do not yet have a conclusive view of what kephalē means or how the word functions in Paul’s letters. I do have several tentative leanings, but I’m hoping to wash my thoughts in public scrutiny to fine tune and correct my ideas so I can come to a better understand of what Paul meant.

Also, I personally don’t have a particular view on women in leadership (in the home or in church) yet. These posts are part of my real-time journey, which is a 3-4 year project I’m currently working on, and am still in the middle of. If God desires only men to occupy church positions of leadership—and if a particular meaning of kephalē supports that view—then so be it. And if all positions of leadership are open to men and women, then so be it. I don’t have any pre-determined view of what the text as a whole, or kephalē in particular, must mean. I’m approaching these questions from the position of a curious exegete, not a pastor being paid by a denomination with a stance.

With that in mind, here are some preliminary thoughts before we jump into the ancient literature.

Preliminary Thoughts

First, I am going to be as thorough as I can in this blog series, so if you’re looking for a quick and simple answer to the question “what does kephalē mean?”, then this is the wrong place for that. I will try to be a clear, but I also want to err on the side of thoroughness and historical honesty. The next few posts will focus specifically on the meaning of kephalē in the LXX and extra-biblical literature, so that we can get our “head” around what the ancients understood the word to mean.

Second, I would love your feedback. Truly. I’m more interested in exploring exegetical questions than promoting a certain theological view. So if you have something constructive, thoughtful, and humble to say, then please do post your comment below. Of course, I reserve the right to delete any comment that is snarky or weird or unhelpful, but for those of you who are also curious about the meaning of kephalē (and related issues), I’d love to have you participate in our conversation. (Please don’t be offended if I keep your comment but don’t respond to your question/thought. Time is always an issue.)

Third, I actually don’t think one’s interpretative conclusions about the meaning of kephalē should determine one’s position on women in local church leadership or in the home. So let me ease the exegetical tension up front. Don’t think that you must interpret kephalē a certain way at risk of losing your egalitarian or complementarian card. I really want to discourage people from having a locked down, airtight theological conclusion about women in leadership to govern their view of what kephalē must mean. (According to one theory rolling around in my head, interpreting kephalē as “authority over, leader” could lend itself to a more egalitarian reading of Eph. 5:21-33. But it’ll take us several posts before we tease this out.)

I’m personally curious about what the apostle Paul—a first-century Jewish Christian living in a male-dominated society much different from a modern western context—meant to say when he wrote: “the husband is the kephalē of the wife” (Eph. 5:23). What we do with the meaning of Paul’s words is our problem, not his.

Possible Interpretations of Kephale

As for the possible meanings of kephalē when it’s not referring to the literal head of a person, there are three that are most common. For what it’s worth, complementarians almost also take the first view, while egalitarians typically take the second or third views.

Authority over, ruler

This is what many people assume kephalē means, since the English term “head” often conveys the idea of “authority over” or “ruler.” The “head of the planning committee” is in some sense in charge of the planning committee. The question, however, is: does the Greek word kephalē carry the same meaning as the English word “head?” Several scholars say “yes,” including (most prolifically) Wayne Grudem,² Joseph Fitzmyer,³ James Hurley,⁴ and virtually every complementarian scholar who has published on the issue of women in leadership.

Source, origin, beginning

Several scholars have countered the above interpretation by saying that the Greek word kephalē does not carry the same notion of “authority over, ruler” as the English word “head.” These scholars argue that kephalē is better interpreted as “source” in ancient Greek literature and in the two Pauline passages (1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23). Man/husband is the “source” of woman/wife in light of Eve being created out of Adam in the creation account (Gen 2:18-23; cf. 1 Cor. 11:8-9).

Several scholars have argued for “source” as the better interpretation of kephalē, including Stephen Bedale,⁵ Jerome Murphy-O’Connor,⁶ Catherine Kroeger,⁷ and (most prolifically) Phillip Payne.⁸

Preeminence, prominence, foremost, first, representative

Proponents of this third view argue that the best interpretation of kephalē is neither “source” nor “authority over,” but something along the lines of preeminence, prominence, foremost, etc. This might sound very close to the first view, but it’s actually different. Something can be prominent, for instance, and not necessarily be in a position of authority. A particular mountain peak can stand out among all other mountains in the range, but this doesn’t mean it’s exercising authority over the other mountains. Certain baseball players like Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, or Clayton Kershaw are prominent among the rest, but this doesn’t mean they are exercising authority over, say, Corbin Carroll, Christian Walker, or Zac Gallen (though I wish they did…sorry, it’s still painful).

Anyway, the most prominent scholars who take this view—though in no way are they exercising authority over other scholars—are Richard Cervin,⁹ Andrew Perrimann,¹⁰ Judith Gundry-Volf,¹¹ and Anthony Thiselton.¹²

The Polysemy of Kephalē

It’s important to keep in mind that the above meanings are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A word like kephalē could mean “source” and not “authority” or “prominence,” or it could mean “source” and also “authority,” or it could mean “source, prominence,” and “authority.” Words can be polysemous—capable of more than one meaning at the same time.

For instance, if I said “the king is the kephalē of his family,” that could mean all three at once. As a father, he’s the “source” of his kids. As king, he’s also quite “prominent.” And as king and father (especially in a male dominated culture), he would also be an “authority” figure exercising “leadership” over his family.

But if I said, “hey look, there’s the kephalē of the river!” I’m probably only referring to the fact that I’ve found the “source” of the river. (I guess I could also be admiring the prominence of the river’s source, but this sense would need to be supplied from the context.) I certainly would not be referring to any kind of “authority” or leadership abilities that the source of the river is exercising over other rivers and such.

So, as we consider whether kephalē means “authority, source” or “prominence” in various text, we also need to be asking whether such a meaning excludes other possible meanings or senses as well. For instance, if kephalē does includes some sense of “source” in its usage, we need to ask the question—based on the surrounding context of the word—does this meaning of “source” exclude all notions of authority and leadership?

Rhetoric, House-hold Codes, and Other Interpretive Issues

Aside from determining the (potentially polysemous) meaning of kephalē, there are further issues surrounding what Paul is doing with the word. He could, for instance, be assuming a certain cultural understanding of the word, but then reverse, change, or play with that meaning. In other words, the lexical understanding of kephalē must be put in conversation with Paul’s rhetorical tactics in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11. It’s possible, for instance, that Paul is “turning kephalē on its head,” as Michelle Lee-Barnwall as argued.¹³

We should also pay special attention to how kephalē was understood when ancient writers thought about the literal relationship of the head to the body.¹⁴ There is a lot of material here that often goes unnoticed (or underappreciated) in the debates over kephalē. How did the ancients view the head’s literal relationship to the body? Was the head its authority, source, or simply the preeminent part of the body? The ancient understanding of the head’s literal relationship to the body will help inform possible metaphorical uses drawn from this literal understanding.

Related to this, how did ancient writers understand kephalē when they utilized it in a head/body metaphor? It was not uncommon for ancient writers, for instance, to describe a military general as kephalē and his military as the body. What function was the general occupying in this metaphor?

I also think it’s important to note how kephalē is used when it’s describing a person’s relationship to other people, since that brings us closer to the Pauline texts and the question at hand, where the man/husband is described as kephalē in relation to woman/wife. A person’s relationship to other people is more significant than, say, an inaniment object being described as kephalē without relationship to anything around it.

Lastly, with Ephesians 5 in particular, we have to appreciate how Paul’s household code is interacting with other ancient household codes, and what role kephalē (and the head/body metaphor as a whole) plays in that interaction.

Future Posts

Since the meaning of kephalē in ancient literature has been hotly disputed, I want to devote some careful attention to this material, beginning with the use of kephalē in the Septuagint (LXX, the Greek translation[s] of the Old Testament). I then want to look at kephalē in extra-biblical Greek literature, the church fathers and early Christian literature, and then bring it back to Paul’s use of the term in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. I’m not sure how many posts this will take—several, I suppose—but I do know that I want to spend the next post interacting with the role of kephalē in the LXX. From my vantage point, it certainly does seem like Wayne Grudem and other complementarian scholars have the better understanding here.

Notes:

1
The reference to 70 years is based on Stephen Bedale’s important article, published in 1954, which sparked our modern debate, “The Meaning of kephalē in the Pauline Epistles,” Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1954): 211-15.
2
Wayne Grudem, “Does kephalē (Head) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal 6 (1985): 38-59; idem., “The Meaning of Kephalē (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), 425-68; idem., “The Meaning of Kephalē (‘Head’): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (March 2001): 25-66.
3
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Another Look at Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 503-11; idem., “Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” Interpretation 47 (1993): 52-59.
4
James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1981)
5
Bedale, “The Meaning of kephalē,” 211-15. Bedale, however, did not say that “source” excludes all notions of authority
6
Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 482-500; “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 81-94.
7
Catherine C. Kroeger, “The Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source’” in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming Revell, 1987), 267-83.
8
Philip B. Payne, “Response,” in Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the Bible, 121-124; idem., Man and Woman in Christ, The Bible
9
Cervin, Richard S. “Does Kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 85-112.
10
Andrew C. Perriman, “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of Kephalē in 1 Cor. 11:3,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 602-22.
11
Judith M. Gundry-Volf, “Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: A Study in Paul’s Theological Method,” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche Feschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher, ed. Jostein Ådna, Scott Hafemann, and Otfried Hofius (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 151-71.
12
Anthony C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 803
13
Michelle Lee-Barnwall, “Turning kephale on Its Head: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Eph. 5:21-33,” in Christian Origins and Classical Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Vol. 1 of The New Testament in Its Hellenistic Context, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013): 599-614.
14
Clinton Arnold’s article has been particularly helpful in this regard: “Jesus Christ: ‘Head’ of the Church (Colossians and Ephesians),” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994): 346-66.