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.1The 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. 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,2Wayne 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. Joseph Fitzmyer,3Joseph 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. James Hurley,4James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1981) 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,5Bedale, “The Meaning of kephalē,” 211-15. Bedale, however, did not say that “source” excludes all notions of authority Jerome Murphy-O’Connor,6Jerome 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. Catherine Kroeger,7Catherine 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. and (most prolifically) Phillip Payne.8Philip B. Payne, “Response,” in Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the Bible, 121-124; idem., Man and Woman in Christ, The Bible
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,9Cervin, Richard S. “Does Kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 85-112. Andrew Perrimann,10Andrew C. Perriman, “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of Kephalē in 1 Cor. 11:3,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 602-22. Judith Gundry-Volf,11Judith 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. and Anthony Thiselton.12Anthony C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 803
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.13Michelle 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.
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.14Clinton 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. 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:
- 1The 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.
- 2Wayne 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.
- 3Joseph 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.
- 4James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1981)
- 5Bedale, “The Meaning of kephalē,” 211-15. Bedale, however, did not say that “source” excludes all notions of authority
- 6Jerome 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.
- 7Catherine 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.
- 8Philip B. Payne, “Response,” in Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the Bible, 121-124; idem., Man and Woman in Christ, The Bible
- 9Cervin, Richard S. “Does Kephalē Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 85-112.
- 10Andrew C. Perriman, “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of Kephalē in 1 Cor. 11:3,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 602-22.
- 11Judith 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.
- 12Anthony C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 803
- 13Michelle 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.
- 14Clinton 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.
Mine is a simple view, based on my own anecdotal experiences of being married for 40 years, (I’m a guy) as well as observing at close proximity many close male and female friends in committed marriages over a long period of time. If you look at the fruit of the messages of various ministers who insist upon complementarianism (headship/submission), it is generally not good. Why would a woman who is a trained accountant not keep track of the family finances just because that’s “the man’s job”? Many similar examples are rife.
Thanks Paul. Some quick thoughts.
his may be true. But I’m still more interested (for the time being) in what Paul meant by the words he used in his letters, which is informed, in part, by looking at the range of possible meanings of those words in his 1 century world.
Also, the abuse of a doctrine doesn’t necessarily nullify the veracity of that doctrine. One could argue, for instance, that the “fruit” of the book of Joshua has been massacres and genocides throughout history. But this doesn’t mean the book of Joshua is itself to blame. It could simply be misused and abused.
Hey Preston,
I enjoy all your posts.
Unlike one of the men commenting, I don’t think anything is set in stone for you at this point.
The last statement you made is where you are at with things right now.
Am I correct in this?
My son struggles with gender dysphoria.
( Now I can put a name to it.)
I have been in contact with Greg Coles. He has been an encouragement to me.
Thank you for your Grace-filled yet Biblically based approach to things .
Love you, brother,
Margie
Paul,
I love your comment.
I am doing a short study on women in the Church, as we have been greatly disrespected in my former church (didn’t leave Jesus!)…
At the moment, I am not in an institutional church.
Thanks for sharing.
Margie
.
Hey Preston great article! Just wondering if kephale is meant as rule over or authority what do we do with Eph. 2:20? Which to my understanding seems to read more in a foundational way, as in the church is coming from Christ being built upon the new covenant with Christ. Moreover, I think my biggest issue in understanding kephale is always the idea of men ruling over like Christ in meaning that men are the “most like” Christ. But scripture doesn’t support that, in fact is says the opposite “man and woman” created in His image. I also see a hierarchy in the reading which then asks the question, is there a hierarchy in the Trinity? Obviously not, and if marriage is supposed to help us understand the mystery of the Gospel, would not that “mystery” best be understood as two people mutually submitting to each in Christ for the betterment of the whole, using their God given gifts to glorify God and spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth? We were given dominion over the earth together, to rule together, this idea of co- heirs in the kingdom is repeated throughout Scripture. Outside of that, my understanding of Christ is that He sought to remove the barriers that kept people from experiencing the Gospel. His entire message was unity in Christ, he spoke out against those who wanted to have a position of authority to rule over with traditions.. Why would Paul then say “let’s set up a different structure of authority?” And now instead of submitting to the teachers (men) of the law, women you are going to submit to husbands and also “men of the law.” Instead, what Paul seems to be trying to do or say is that we are all under the source of the new covenant which is Christ Jesus, not the law.!
Thanks Cindy! A few quick things:
– kephale isn’t use in Eph 2:20
– even if kephale often means “leader” in ancient literature, this isn’t the only possible meaning in the range of possible meanings, so the individual contexts of kephale in Paul need to be examined on their own.
– Regarding the Trinity, no one is arguing for ontological hierarchy within the Trinity (or marriage). At least, none of the complementarian scholars that I’m reading. Complementarians argue for role distinctions and relationships, where in some cases one person submits to the other as their authority, in a similar way that the Son submits to the Father (1 Cor 15:28; Phil 2:5-11). But this does not refer to ontological hierarchy. (BTW, I’m not saying I agree with the complementarian reading; just trying to represent it accurately 🙂
– As we’re talking about NT leadership, we need to keep in mind that the whole concept of authority and leadership has been turned on its head in the NT. This is why I don’t think it’s helpful to frame the issue as (I’m not saying you’re doing this): “If women can’t be leaders then this means they’re unequal to men” because this implies that non-leaders are unequal to leaders. But that’s not how the NT talks about leadership.
In any case, I’m still a long way off from actually getting to the NT and Paul’s letters! These first several posts are really just trying to get our arms around how the word “kephale” was used and understood in the ancient world.
Even though you started by saying you weren’t being paid by an organization that was devoted to a particular point of view, your last sentence made it seem like you drew a conclusion. I liked the post immensely – except for that last sentence. I enjoy all your theological ruminations, so I have to hope that you didn’t mean that last sentence the way it sounded to me.
Thanks Alberto. I think you’re jumping too far ahead and reading this study through the lens of complementarian/egalitarian CONCLUSIONS. Complementarians, like Grudem, COULD HAVE demonstrated better exegesis with a particular word–and in this case, based on all the ancient references that I’ve examined, which we’ll lay out extensively over the next few posts, I think they have–and still be wrong in their overarching conclusions about women in leadership.
But, the proof of the pudding is in the text, so I’m happy to be corrected in my actual exegesis of the texts we’ll be looking at over the next few posts.
And I’m factually not paid by an organization that’s devoted to a particular point of view 🙂
And that is, in itself, not exactly true Preston. You are beholding to your “followers” and “likes” and that can be equally if not more powerful to swaying you than any organization or denomination. How about disclosing your income from Theology in The Raw, YouTube, etc. You’ve broadened your base from the gender and sexuality core that you’ve well established and now, it would appear, you’re looking to broaden that influence theologically to women in ministry. My advice, be very careful.
Holy smokes! For the record, I am thankful for Preston’s voice, and that it’s reached me, my husband, our circle of friends, and several of our church staff members. I love the diversity of his content, and have been healthily challenged by listening and reading content from him and his podcast guests that I would never have come across otherwise. Every follower of Jesus can learn from him. Perhaps his growing following and broadening influence is due to favor from the Father. But who knows, I’m just a mom from Cincinnati. I could be wrong…& to be fair, so could you in whatever seemingly sinister assumptions you may or may not be making 😉
YES very well stated.
I, too, glean a lot from Preston.
Have found him to be fair in his approach to things
☝🏼❤️
In your introductory remarks (this blog) you asked “what function was the general occupying in this (leadership) metaphor”. IN OTHER-WORDS, you suspect that THE FUNCTION WILL HELP TO DEFINE THE TERM.
If any task and/or ”function” can be determined/described, and agreed upon, then that understanding goes directly to the understanding of the term being used, AND, (as we suspect and expect) they are in fact the descriptor or definition of the term.
If we understand that Christ was the head of the church and that means (according to clear unambiguous doctrine) that he gave himself up for, sacrificed for, died for, treasured, protected, ETC the church, then THAT “function” seems to make leadership a term we can all live with, AND, it leaves little room for bad behavior by any type of leadership of any kind. It also removes any objection to the term.
Of course, any authority or headship implies a willingness to be lead, a desire to follow, and people or wives that are willing to abide by the decisions of others.
It is only our selfishness and pride that makes these things difficult, NOT THE STRUCTURE OR THE CONCEPT!
REMEMBER CHRIST was obedient to the father and the H S was sent by the son. Both did what pleased the father ( and the son). Of course, they had unity and one purpose. We (husband and wives, men and women, employers employees) don’t have unity, at least some of the time. That’s where Godly decision making comes into play and we don’t do as well as we should. The decisions and activities of Christ were always for the benefit of others, and there is no legitimate complaint against that type of leadership. Same should apply here to us, and what ever leadership role we are asked to take!
BK
Thank you for introducing me to the concept of polysemy! When discussing how the author of Hebrews uses “teleios” and related words, I’ve been struggling to concisely describe how it could mean “complete” and “perfect” at the same time.
I’m really looking forward to your exploration of this topic, especially as I’ve been working through my own thoughts on egalitarian vs complimentarian stances, as well as control as a near-universal motivator of sin.
Thank you Preston for sharing your well-researched work in this accessible way, both in word and concept, and on this website. May the Lord keep you in clarity of heart and mind as you continue this study. I look forward to reading and engaging the next installment!
I feel it’s very telling what your trajectory is since you use the picture of a woman for the ‘header’ of this article. Headship is ultimately about Christ and His earthly representatives of headship who are husbands/men. Breaking down (KEPHALĒ) is exactly what all the leading egalitarians do.
Should Preston not research the word bc egalitarians also do? Should your interpretation not be questioned or critiques of that interpretation not be taken seriously bc some people who explore the topic end up disagreeing? I’m confused as to what your inference about the header photo “tells” you. Seems to say that because he used an image of a women his mind is made up and he’s being deceitful about genuinely exploring the topic… is that right?
Preston and others, I would be curious to know your thoughts on this statement:
Every team has a leader. If our family is a team on a mission, it has a leader who has authority. If the mission is essential, then the who and how of leadership matters. This is clear in other realms – CEOs, coaches of sports teams, and the military.
Currently, our families have a leader. If you are unsure who it is, ask your kids and friends.
I struggle with your premise that every team has a leader. Groups can organize around causes and issues without an individual serving as the “leader”. Organizations can have boards without a leader. As can issues like the women’s suffrage moment. There may be more influential people but they aren’t necessarily the singular leader.
This got my attention this morning. “Funny” that I saw it just after I had been praying because in this prayer “head” had also gotten my attention. It wasn’t in the context of the the roles of men and women but in the context of ongoing concerns and prayer lately over an ineffective Church of which I am also an ineffective part. But the prayer has been not only a lament but much more so a direction and hope to pray, an imagination of what it would be like in the Church and so the world if we functioned as a body, the body. We know the passages about the Church likened to a body with each part, doing its part, being essential to the rest of the body (suppling what is lacking in each other’s faith). And the “head”, Jesus, making that all possible, directing, controlling, and ordering (putting in order and the opposite of chaos) this function. And amazingly, mysteriously, and beautifully, Jesus the head who makes all this possible, in a very real sense, as nature bears witness to, is also equal to the rest of the members of the body, he having his function though preeminent. Some I’m sure would balk at that thought, but Jesus himself and the New Testament writers said as much in other terms. It is the fulfillment of God’s purpose through a savior who came from among us as well as divine, who dwelt among us and now dwells in us as well as among us.
When you dig into extra biblical uses it may be fruitful to explore Dr Sarah Ruden’s works. She’s a classics scholar who work in/with New Testament interpretations. “Paul Among the People” is a quick read and would give you a sense of her work. I imagine you two would have a fascinating conversation.
Thanks! I’ve heard of her but haven’t read her stuff yet. I’ll put it on the list!