Christ: A Model for Headship and Submission: A Crucial Verse in 1 Corinthians 11 Overturns Egalitarian Interpretations

In recent years the debate over the meaning of male headship has centered around the meaning of the Greek word kephalē ("head") in passages such as Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. Egalitarians have argued that its basic metaphorical meaning is "origin," source," and that this is how it should be understood in these passages. Complementarians have contended for the traditional view, maintaining that the basic meaning of kephalē is "leader, one in authority." The present article seeks to shed new light on this issue so vital for the roles of husbands and wives in the home and the roles of men and women in the church by an in-depth study of the order of pairs in 1 Corinthians 11:3: Now 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.

A Look At The Text

In our text, Paul says that "the man is the head (kephalē) of a woman." A common egalitarian argument is that in this verse kephalē cannot here have the sense of "leader, one in authority" because of the order of the three main elements of the verse. If kephalē were meant to have a hierarchical sense, then the order of the pairs would have been different. The last pair would have been first: God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of man; man is the head of woman. But this is not the given order; therefore kephalē must mean something else.

Payne states this view very succinctly: "The interpretation of ‘head' in this passage as a chain of command or hierarchy demands rearrangement of the sequence that Paul gives."¹ Bilezikian makes the same argument: "Paul's precise sequential arrangement of the three elements of this verse shows that he is not building a chain of command." If this were his point, he would have put the God/Christ pair first. "It is inconceivable that Paul would have so grievously jumbled up the sequence in a matter involving God, Christ, and humans." Bilezikian says this is "an insuperable argument against the hierarchical interpretation of 11:3."²

But if kephalē means "source" (as egalitarians generally claim), then there is a natural chronological order, beginning with man's origin from the creative hand of Christ (Gen. 2:7), followed by the woman's origin from the side of the man (Gen. 2:21-23), and culminating in Christ's origin from God at His incarnation into this world.³ "If the incarnation is in view," says Keener, "then 11:3 is in chronological sequence.... Christ is the source of Adam, Adam of Eve, and God of Christ."⁴

Thus egalitarians argue that "source" is the only view that is consistent with the natural chronological order of the three pairs in 1 Corinthians 11:3. If authority were the main point, then verse 3 would have the order of God/Christ, Christ/man, man/woman.

But this argument assumes that in the latter case the point of the verse would be to affirm an ordered hierarchy (God > Christ > man > woman), and it assumes that this is what non-egalitarians are claiming the verse does. These assumptions are erroneous, however, and to attack the nonegalitarian view of the verse on the basis of the order of the pairs misses the whole point.

Reasons For The Order

Exactly what is the relation among these three statements, then? Why do they have this particular order? This is not at all difficult to understand when we take kephalē to mean "leader, one in authority." The main point is the second statement, which succinctly affirms the complementary authority/submission relationship which God established between men and women in the very beginning.⁵ Man is the head over the woman; woman is subordinate to the man. But in order to preclude the possibility that either the man or the woman might misunderstand the nature of his or her role, Paul adds the other two statements as illustrations or analogies for both sides of the man/woman relationship.

In the first relationship, Christ is the model for man's role as the head of the woman; in the second relationship, Christ is also the model for the woman's role as subordinate to the man. Thus Christ, in his incarnate state and in his role as Redeemer, becomes the model for both men and women, since he is the head of every man and at the same time subordinate to God the Father.⁶

Objections, Questions And Concerns

What does it mean to say that Christ is the head (authority over) every man? This is not simply a reference to the fact that the second person of the Trinity was involved in the creation of Adam. Rather it means that Christ, as the risen and exalted Redeemer, has authority over every man. The word for "man" is anēr, which is the term used in the Greek language specifically for males. Thus Christ is the head over all human males. This includes both Christians and non- Christians, though only the former will acknowledge Christ's authority over them.

Thus because we understand kephalē as "authority over" and not "source," we are able to see beyond the dubious view that Paul must be referring to some kind of creation, whether the original or the new.⁷ We can see instead that Christ's headship refers to the triumphant victory that he won through His death and resurrection, and to the lordship that he exercises over all things from his enthronement at the right hand of God. The Father has made the cruci- fied Savior "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36) and has given him "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). "He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him as head over all things" (Eph. 1:22).

Because he has this general authority over all things, he necessarily has authority over specific individuals and groups. Thus he is head of the church (Eph. 5:23), and he is the head over every man.

Someone might observe that in this sense Christ is equally the head over every woman. So why does Paul say this at all, and why does he say it of men specifically? The answer is that the central idea in v. 3 is that "the man is the head of a woman." The main subject of the passage is the man/woman relationship, especially the authority/submission aspect of this relationship. Thus at the beginning of the discussion Paul lays down the general principle that is at stake, that is, the man is the head of a woman. But in order to guard against any male tendency to use this principle as an excuse for autocratic exploitation of women, he reminds all men that they too have a head; and that head is Christ. Therefore they are not free to define and to exercise their headship in any way they choose, but only according to the pattern of Christ's own headship and in accordance with Christ's teaching about male headship given through the inspired apostles (Eph. 5:23-33; 1 Pet. 3:7).

Why, then, does Paul say that "God is the head of Christ"? The headship of God over Christ involves Christ's subordination to the Father. In the same way, man's headship over the woman involves the woman's subordination to the man. Egalitarians, of course, object to this whole concept; and even many women who accept their subordinate role do so with reluctance and resentment, thinking that subordination somehow implies inferiority.

To counter such objections and to alleviate such concerns, Paul reminds us all, and especially women, that Christ Himself has a head and occupies a subordinate role under the Father.⁸ This is important, because the New Testament is very clear that although Christ is subordinate to the Father, he is in no way inferior to him in his essence. He is fully divine and equal with the Father and the Spirit in essence and glory. Neither is Christ inferior in terms of his specific role as Redeemer. Although his role involves placing himself in a position subordinate to the Father, his role or work itself is in no way an inferior work among all the works of deity. Indeed, in many ways it is the most glorious of all (Phil. 2:9-11).

Summary And Conclusion

The function of this statement, then, is to remove obstacles that hinder women from accepting their God-intended role of submission to male headship.⁹ As Neuer says, "This comparison makes it clear that the subordination of woman to man envisaged by Paul has nothing to do with devaluing or oppressing women" or with "any kind of contempt for women."¹⁰ "The headship of God the Father in relation to the incarnate Son in no way diminishes the dignity of Christ's person or His full equality in the Godhead," says Bacchiocchi. "In the same way the functional headship of man in the home and in the church in no way detracts from, or is detrimental to, the dignity and equality of woman in personhood."¹¹

In conclusion, the order of the pairs in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is not only consistent with the view that kephalē means "authority over"; it actually reinforces this view. The center pair is the main point: the man is the head or leader of a woman, implying the role of submission for the latter. The surrounding pairs present the incarnate Christ in the roles of both headship and submission, thus providing a model for both sexes. Headship is therefore not intrinsically superior to submission, and submission is not intrinsically inferior to headship. Christ exercised both roles, that of head over the human race, and that of submission to God the Father, and dignified both. May the God of all grace give us the grace to live out our God-given callings, both of authority and submission, as unto him, for his glory.