| << | Contents | >> |
Freedom in God's Divine Order for Women
Many, if not most, egalitarians object to male leadership in the home as well as in the church and question the historic translation of the Greek word kephale (NT:2776) in the following passage to mean “head.”
...submitting to one another in the fear of God. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head (NT:2776) of the wife, as also Christ is head (NT:2776) of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject (NT:5293) to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
They could hardly leave this alone because male headship in the home has been be used to justify male eldership in the church.
To answer their objections, we will consider the following:
What is male headship?
Many scholars believe that male headship began in the Garden, but disagree as to when. Was headship part of the creation of man and woman or was it a result of the fall?
In Biblical times, the heart, not the head, was considered the organ of reason and authority. Would God use “head” to denote the husbands role in a marriage in a culture with this understanding?
Can the Greek word kephale be properly translated “head” in Ephesians 5:23, as it is in all current versions of the Bible, or is it mistranslated as some propose?
Does the mutual submission described in Ephesians 5:21 between a husband and wife conflict with the idea of male headship?
Are wives specifically instructed to respect their husbands?
Before we answer the above questions, let’s compare eldership and headship to see if they are functionally the same as some claim. Fathering aspects of both roles are related in 1 Timothy 3. Is this the only similarity?
...one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?...
There are similarities between eldership in the church and headship in the family (headship is defined below). As we will find, both embody elements of oversight and submission. Both necessitate keeping watch over the souls of others. Both require grace, love, and humility. But there is a significant difference, as pointed out by Donald Rumble in The Apostolic and Prophetic Foundation.[77] He states that the similarities end when it comes to making eldership into a form of headship. The husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of His Church, but elders are not head of the church. Only Christ is. “Scripture teaches that the husband-wife relationship reveals the union between Christ and His Church, not the relationship between the elders and the church.
“Some have said the overseers of the local church are the head of that group as a husband is head of his wife. Thus, as the wife is to submit to her husband, so the church is to submit to the local eldership. However, for any overseer to take such a position is to usurp the place that belongs only to the Lord Jesus, the one who gave His life for His bride.”
The difference between eldership and headship is further underscored by the significantly different Greek words used for submission and obedience for these two callings (refer to Appendix I). The words for the relationship of the church to elders (NT:5226 and NT:3982 in Hebrews 13:17 on page 13) have a flavor of being persuaded by and yielding to, while the words applying to the wife to husband relationship (NT:5293 and NT:5219 in Ephesians 5:24 and 1 Peter 3:5-6 [on pages 5 and 88] ) lean toward obedience and comforming to authority (literally, hearing under as a subordinate).
First let’s look at a definition for headship presented by Piper and Grudem.[78] “In the home, Biblical headship is the husband’s divine calling to take primary responsibility for Christlike leadership, protection, and provision...Male headship at home ...means that men bear the responsibility for the overall pattern of life. Headship does not prescribe the details of who does precisely what activity. After the fall, God called Adam to account first (Genesis 3:9). This was not because the woman bore no responsibility for sin, but because the man bore primary responsibility for life in the garden–including sin.” Headship, then, according to Piper and Grudem, includes the responsibility to oversee family life, a challenge to practice that oversight with love, and the call to lead the family into the fullness of each member’s call in Christ, beginning with salvation. The key words in headship are love and responsibility.
But the submission and authority that are often wrongly associated with headship have created oppressive conditions for women in many marriages, even some in Christian homes. In extreme cases men have abdicated their place in the family and effectively deserted their children. Self-centered male lifestyles have robbed women of the protection and spiritual covering they need. It should not be that way in God’s kingdom. What’s wrong?
Biblical headship and submission in marriage are unique to that relationship. Their purpose is to bring a oneness in marriage like that between Christ and His Church. This is impossible without the grace of God and a deep desire on both the husband’s and wife’s parts to see God bring it about. A worldly approach to authority and submission often brings superiority, domination, and servitude, hardly elements of a Christ-like relationship.
At a meeting of our church elders, we discussed the unique characteristics of headship and submission in marriage and decided that they cannot be separated from the sacrificial love on which marriage is to be based. Additionally, we recognized that headship in marriage has two distinct elements, one for the husband and one for the wife. The husband’s part is to love his wife and accept the responsibility of being her head, while the wife is called to submit to him. If there is inherent authority in headship (many people believe that there is), that authority is ineffective if the wife is unwilling to submit to her husband since Christian headship is to be free from domination. In fact, nowhere in Scripture does it say that a husband is to make his wife submit to him. This is evident in the following passages:
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For (because) the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
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.
In a paper on headship, Donald Rumble writes, “It is not that the wife must submit to her husband because he has authority over her. Rather she submits precisely because Christ is her Lord and He clearly instructs her to do so. It is not that the headship relationship of the husband to the wife is an expression of his authority, but of Christ’s authority as her Lord. Again, as she faithfully walks out the implications of Christ’s Lordship in her life, there will come forth from that marriage a revelation of Christ’s headship of His Church. Her submission to her husband’s headship reveals both Christ’s Lordship in her life as well as His Headship of His Bride.” The fact that a wife is to submit to her husband’s headship makes it imperative that he also submit to Christ’s Lordship. He must know the Lord and seek His purposes for his family. This requires that he spend time with God in prayer and in His word so that he can be prepared to minister the will of God to his family and provide godly direction. By virtue of her submission to him, a wife implicitly receives her husband in a position of leadership, oversight, and authority in her life. As a result, her husband shoulders the responsibilities delineated by Grudem on the previous page, i.e., he takes on responsibility for Godly oversight, protection (especially spiritual), and provision.
If the husband must take a final stand on a particular decision making process, he should not insist on his own way. He is to be willing to lay down his desires and needs for the benefit of his wife. He should only overrule her if he believes his position on a particular issue is best for the family and is an expression of God’s heart. It is essential that both have openly discussed and prayed about the issue in order to find the mind of God. He must be willing to submit to his wife’s calling (i.e., the special gifting she has from God), especially when she has a word from the Lord. The wife is to have a heart to receive her husband’s headship and oversight, willingly submitting to him without chafing or complaining. She should also be willing to trust God to deal with him when he doesn’t listen to her properly, when he goes beyond Godly oversight, or becomes overbearing and harsh. In the case of the latter, especially, a wife may have to seek counsel from the elders.
In all the discussions about authority, we must not lose sight of the fact that sacrificial love, not authority, is the heart of Biblical headship (Ephesians 5:25).
Pawson[79] has pointed out, “Woman was made from man, not dust...Woman was made for man...Woman was made after man...Any one of these three aspects of woman’s creation would not conclusively establish her subordination to man, but the cumulative effect of all three points in this direction.” (Paul reinforces the idea that “man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s sake” in 1 Corinthians 11:9.) Could headship have existed before the fall as this author implies? Can it be seen in the order of creation or in God calling Eve to be Adam’s helper?
Consider the order of creation. Did God have a special reason for not creating Adam and Eve together? If so, why? If the order of creation (i.e., man first) did not have meaning, why weren’t man and woman created at the same time and in the same way? In fact, why did God wait until after Adam had named the animals (whom he was to have dominion over) to create Eve? Adam was given the same responsibility to name her as he had in naming the animals (“She shall be called woman.” Genesis 3:23). Does that responsibility imply headship?
Trombley[80] maintains there was no headship before sin entered the picture. He states that the headship of man in the marital relationship is a result of sin. He describes it using disparaging words: “The frustrated woman withstanding man’s bullish aggressiveness isn’t visible until after sin and death gained control of mankind.” He has a knack for choosing negative and provocative words. But can we really tell when headship was established? Consider Genesis 2:23-25.
And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
We can draw few conclusions from this passage about how Adam and Eve interacted before the fall. They cleaved, were naked and unashamed. There doesn’t appear to be any specific order in their relationship other than Adam being created first and Eve being created from his side to be his helpmate. We don’t know if they danced, if they prayed, or if they climbed trees. We don’t even know if they talked about eating the forbidden fruit.
However, maybe there is more than first meets the eye. Consider the following facts and observations from Genesis 2 and 3:
Genesis 2:15-17 – God chose to define the forbidden fruit to Adam before Eve was created. Was Adam responsible to instruct Eve about God’s directions when she came on the scene and then ensure that she followed them? If so, that would seem to have placed Adam in a position of responsibility in their relationship, at least in regard to God’s only commandment for them. Moses was a man with responsibility for the people of Israel and God used him to bring the ten commandments to His people. Did God see Adam as Eve’s head in a similarly position of responsibility with Eve, especially regarding fruit picking?
Genesis 3:1 – Notice who the serpent approached with temptation in Genesis 3:1. It was Eve not Adam. Was he aware of Adam’s headship and wanted to go behind his back, subtly undercutting Adam’s call as the first “born” to watch over his wife? After all, Satan hates authority, especially God’s, and will do all he can to undermine it. Did the Fall begin with Eve bypassing Adam’s headship?
Genesis 3:9-10 – God initially confronts Adam not Eve with the responsibility for violating His commandment. If their responsibilities were the same, it would seem plausible that He would have confronted Eve since she was the first to eat. Was God highlighting Adam’s headship by so doing?
Genesis 3:17 – God then questions Adam for heeding the voice of his wife, not simply for eating from the tree. Why didn’t He just ask “have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying ‘You shall not eat?’” Wasn’t that his disobedience? Could it be that he was supposed to have been providing protective oversight for his wife as her head, keeping her from deception rather than joining her in disobedience? (Note that Paul also lays responsibility for the fall of mankind on Adam, not on Eve, in Romans 5:17-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-27, probably for the same reason.)
Could the relationship between headship and the fall have been its corruption by sin rather than its origin because of sin? The order of creation and the observations above would strongly indicate that this is the case. I believe that it is.
Trombley’s[81] thesis that a woman’s submission to her husband is a result of the fall isn’t his only creative idea. He also maintains that headship no longer holds because all of the “curses” of the Garden have been overturned by the new creation: “Everything Adam’s sin brought upon the human family was canceled,” and “Everything evil brought into the world by Adam’s sin, including woman’s subjugation, had been removed by the last Adam.” But look again at Genesis Chapter 3:
To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; 1) In pain you shall bring forth children...Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, AND have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, “You shall not eat of it: 2) Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. 3) Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. 4) In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and 5) to dust you shall return.”
In this passage God lists five consequences of Adam’s sin (see my inserted numbers). Which of the five has been turned around by the New Covenant? Did the ground get easier to till? Did the thorns and thistles suddenly die? Does man’s body no longer sweat or return to dust after death? Likewise with the woman, did childbirth suddenly get easier? The answer to all of these questions is no (except for some of the technical achievements like motorized plows, weed poisons, antiperspirant, anesthesia, and cryogenics). How then can the author postulate that the man “ruling” over the woman ceases in the New Covenant when these aspects of judgment are still with us? What the New Covenant did was bring a deeper revelation of headship, building on the headship that had started in Adam and Eve’s relationship before the fall, rather than bringing an end to it. The gospel brought a new heart of love and oneness into male headship that had been corrupted by the fall.
It is interesting that Trombley[82] speaks of fallen Adam as follows, “He now has a new nature of the devil. He’s a tyrant now! Instead of loving, he now hates. No longer is he patient and gentle, but totally selfish. His former kindness is gone; he’s now brutal and self-centered. He’s a rebel and a sinner and as such he’ll dominate and rule you.” This statement is an extraordinary interpretation of what happened in Genesis 3. I seriously question the author’s use of this kind of emotional language to describe Adam. I think that sensationalism is a questionable tactic to use in the examination of God’s word. By the way, it is interesting that he never speculates in his book about changes that may have occurred in the fallen woman’s character or to her heart of stone.
It has been stated[83] that “historically, women have never loved their role of submission. There was never a period in history where they weren’t chafing...” There is probably some truth in this. In fact Pawson[84], in referring to Genesis 3:16, has the following to say about the husband and wife relationship after the fall: “In relation to her husband, her ‘desire will be to’ him, an unusual Hebraism that means an ambition to control, manipulate, and possess someone (as its occurrence in Genesis 4:7 clearly shows). That is, having led her husband into sin (and assumed the headship), she must now live with a continuing urge to subordinate him to her wish and will. His reaction will be not only to resist this take over, but to use his greater strength to rule her. Male domination is the inevitable result of this struggle for supremacy of wills. In Genesis 3:16 lies the real explanation for the centuries of exploitation and suppression of women, against which feminism is validly protesting.” If Pawson is correct, no wonder there are women who have “chafed” through-out history! Too many men have clung to a dominating relationship in their headship rather than a loving one; too many women have either striven for a man’s position or acquiesced to this corruption of headship.
The New Covenant should have changed all this, but not by annulling God’s headship for husbands. Instead, Paul presents sacrificial love and willing submission as the motives for fulfilling God’s plan without chafing or dominating. There are many woman who have thrived in God’s design for the family. This is especially true when the man has the heart of a servant and truly loves his wife, and she has a submissive heart for her husband and for God’s order in the family and the church. Male domination and Biblical male headship are distinctly different; they do not come from the same kind of heart.
Many men who resist Paul’s teaching state that they have no desire to dominate their wives. Good. Neither do I. But God has called us to take responsibility as heads of our families, to be accountable to Him for how we lead them, and to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. I fail often, but that doesn’t negate God’s call for me as a husband. Adam abdicated his place of headship and disobeyed God; Eve was deceived. I don’t want such things to happen to my wife and me or to the families in our church
One element in the argument for female eldership is the need to undermine the idea of male headship. Pointing out its abuses has been one approach. In another tack, egalitarians set out to prove that the heart, rather than the head [Gk. kephale (NT:2776)] was seen as the organ of reason and authority in the minds of New Testament writers and the people they addressed. Therefore, they say, kephale can’t refer to headship as scholars have believed for centuries. If they could establish this premise, they would be in a position to conclude that kephale must represent something other than “head” in the contested passages and, therefore, show that a husband’s place in the family is misrepresented in the current translations of the Bible.
To understand what is wrong with this premise, let us first look at the definitions for heart (I’ve coded certain words with italics, dark type, and underlining to show that there is a striking consistency between the definitions in Old Testament Hebrew[85], New Testament Greek[86], and even in English in today’s Webster’s Dictionary[87]):
(Note that all of the definitions below for heart assume that man is made up of only two parts: body and soul. This concept is prevalent in psychology and reflects the effects of psychology on word definitions. However, I believe that the Bible presents man as made up of three parts: body, soul, and spirit. In Scripture the spirit of man is often referred to as his heart. In the following discussion of the heart I will use the body/soul definition of man, which defines the soul and spirit as the heart, because it is consistent with the views of most people in the secular societies of today and of Biblical times and probably also many who question the traditional use of kephale in Scripture. For more on the three part definition of man see Body, Soul, and Spirit by Dale Rumble.[88])
New Testament Definition – “kardia” – the heart, i.e. (figuratively) the thoughts or feelings (mind); also (by analogy) the middle or center.
Old Testament Definition – “leb” – the heart; also used figuratively very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect; likewise for the center of anything:
Webster’s Dictionary Definition[89] – Heart – The vital center of one’s being, emotions, and sensibilities. Emotional constitution, disposition, and mood. Capacity for concern and compassion. Courage. The most central part.
In its use in Scripture (as expressed in the definitions), our heart is:
The place we believe, think, imagine (actually attributes of the soul), and where character is developed.
The place we can be pure, proud, deceived, stubborn, and go astray.
It is also the place where God’s word is written and treasured, and the place of our conscience, which can be hardened by sin.
God refers to the core or center of our being when He speaks of the heart in the Old and New Testaments. We do the same thing today. Biblical writers used heart because they had a limited understanding of anatomy. It obviously included what we know now are the functions of the brain (Biblically part of the soul). These include not only thinking, but the control of the body, and therefore a place of responsibility. The Old Testament writers spoke the same way about the heart being the center of our being the New Testament writers did. They also did not know about the brain being the director or head of the body. Yet the Old Testament writers used rosh (head) 180 times as a word for one in authority.[90] (Much to the chagrin of egalitarians, I’m sure, since they would have much preferred that head was never used as a metaphor for leaders.) Why then does it seem strange that God would choose to use head to define the place of responsibility a husband is to have in his family in the New Testament? Obviously, the people in Old Testament times used head as a metaphor for positions of responsibility frequently, even though they considered heart to be the place where thinking and similar activities occurred. Shouldn’t we expect that the people in the New Testament era would have been able to do so also? Interestingly, today we also talk about the heart of an individual. When we do, we often mean the place of compassion, the site of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the place in which our thoughts and beliefs must reside for us to be truly changed.
Egalitarians ask this question: “If God had wanted husbands to be the ‘heads’ of their wives, is there another word He would have had Paul use rather than kephale to clearly establish this fact?” Trombley[91], along with other authors, says yes. He believes that archon or exousia would have most certainly been used instead of kephale if Paul really wanted to convey a place of leadership in Greek. Since they weren’t, Trombley thinks this is further proof that God must have wanted to convey something else with kephale. (We will discuss the meaning of kephale later.) But let’s look at archon and exousia and some of the passages in which they are used:
NT:758 – archon – a first in rank or power. KJV – chief (ruler), magistrate, prince, ruler.
But the Pharisees said, “He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons.”
“When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.
But he who did his neighbor wrong pushed him away, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?”
NT:1849 – exousia – privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control). KJV – authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me.
And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod...
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
Both exousia and archon, as seen from the references above and the definitions, would unquestionably have conveyed an idea of responsibility and submission. They are applied to rulers, military officers, people in government, and even Satan. These positions would have tended to perpetuate the idea many people are trying to eliminate. They present a picture of people who use commands as a superior and wield power through subjugating others. Can you imagine how easy it could have been to justify the excesses of “subjugation” with “brutish aggressiveness” (Trombley’s expressions) toward wives if Paul had used either of these words? In the military, almost blind obedience to a superior is demanded. In certain countries governing authorities can dismiss or fire subordinates for disobedience (or kill them), when governments change, or even on a whim. This was especially true in Biblical times. However, God through Paul wanted to portray something new in the husband/wife relationship. He wanted marriages in which the husband is in intimate oneness with his wife, where he serves, loves, and cares for her. He wanted a relationship where the husband leads and is responsible to Him for how he fulfills his headship. The physical head is part of the body and cares for it because they are part of one another. This kind of heart cannot be expressed using exousia or archon. God wanted to reveal a new kind of relationship, involving servanthood with a heart for oneness, one unlike that in the world or even in the authoritarian role of the Old Testament. As we look deeper, we will see the godly responsibility of headship is expressed by kephale because it would tend to include the kind of heart described in the following Scriptures, both of which are in passages that relate to the submission of wives to their husbands (highlighted):
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject (NT:5293) to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything...Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her...So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies... but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
Wives, likewise, be submissive (NT:5293) to your own husbands... as Sarah obeyed (NT:5219) Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
(1 Peter 3: 1, 6-7)
The relationship between submission of wives and the headship of husbands is clear in Ephesians 5:22-29 and supported by 1 Peter 3:1-6, especially Sarah’s calling Abraham lord (probably a term of respect that illustrates Ephesians 5:33).
In trying to redefine “head” it is easy to neglect the fact that Paul was very familiar with the use of this term in the Old Testament as not only the part of our bodies that we bow or that holds our hat, but also extensively for a leader or one to whom submission is required. See the following passages for examples of the Hebrew word rosh (the English word translated from rosh is highlighted.):
But You, O LORD, are a shield for me, my glory and the One who lifts up my head.
Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people.
Then the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites came near to Eleazar the priest, to Joshua the son of Nun, and to the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, the power and the glory, the victory and the majesty; for all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and You are exalted as head over all.
As a Jew, would not Paul have felt comfortable using the term “head” to speak of the relationship between a husband and wife? His understanding of God’s “New Testament heart” for husbands would have reinforced this usage in his mind. I think that the people he wrote to also understood such usage probably through conversations with Paul and the context of his letters. In fact, Paul had no qualms using the Greek word for head (kephale) in the following passage concerning Jesus’ authority over the principalities and powers, having disarmed them through His death and resurrection (see Colossians 2:15).
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Archon and exousia do not seem to be good words for headship in a home. They do not, and cannot, express the heart that God desires to express in headship. What about kephale? Since its meaning in English is being contested, let’s look at it in detail to determine what it should mean and if the arguments proposed to change its English meaning are valid.
Kephale is translated in all of the 12 versions of the Bible listed in the Reference Material Section for this paper as “head.” The following two passages, in addition to the one above from Colossians, strongly reenforce “head” as the best translation of this Greek word:
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head (NT:2776) over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head (NT:2776) of the wife, as also Christ is head (NT:2776) of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Ephesians 1:22 states that Christ is kephale (NT:2776) over all things, with all things under His feet. As in 1 Chronicles 29:11 below, head is used in conjunction with over (Greek – kephale huper), which to me unquestionably ties kephale to some degree of “authority,” not to “originator or life source” as some authors propose. What sense would it make in Old Testament theology to say that God gave Him to be life source (or source) over all or originator over all? (These terms might apply to body ministry in New Testament theology.) Kephale must address a form of authority here as the Hebrew word does in Chronicles.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, the power and the glory, the victory and the majesty; for all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and You are exalted as head (OT:7218) over all.
Ephesians 5:22-24 essentially says that wives are to submit in the marriage relationship for (or because) their husbands are their heads (kephales) as Christ is the head (kephale) of the church. These verses similarly tie the submission of the church to Christ to His headship of the church. Submission in both cases is linked with kephale. If kephale in this verse means source, then source has a form of authority linked to it because of the call for submission. Again, head makes more sense here for kephale than source.
Trombley[92] reinterprets kephale in order to remove the sense of submission tied to its meaning in the following passages:
...and you are complete in Him, who is the head (life source) of all principality and power.
And He is the head (exalted originator and completer) of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
...and not holding fast to the head (source of life), from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head (top or crown) over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Considering that he is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Ephesians 1:21), I think “head” is much more appropriate translation for “kephale of all principality and power” in Colossians 2:10.
Using “exalted originator and completer” in Colossians 1:18 fits the author’s point of view well. But why couldn’t kephale also indicate the truth concerning His Headship over the body? He certainly has such a position. As far as His being the originator, the phrase that He “ is the beginning” would seem to cover that.
Colossians 2:19 clearly refers to Jesus as the One from whom our corporate identity is derived. It is His mind that we as His body are to reveal to the world. To lay down our thoughts and to walk revealing His, requires an acknowledgment of His Headship. So why can’t the passage express both His Headship and His also being the source of our life and of the anointing for ministry?
Then in 1 Corinthians 11:3 Trombley switches from these definitions to “source, base or derivation.”
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head (source, base or derivation) of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
However, Trombley doesn’t add his other meanings, such as “exalted originator and completer” or “source of life.” He limits his meaning for man now to “source or origin of woman in the sense that she was made from the side of Adam.” I’m sure he didn’t want to propose that man was the “exalted originator and completer” of woman. One doesn’t get into the problem of constantly redefining kephale if you allow for the idea of an element of authority in its meaning. In addition, consider the consequences if you define “head” as simply “source or origin” or even “base or derivation” and then apply it to God’s relationship to His Son in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Did the Son have a point of origin or is God eternal, revealing Himself as Father and Son?
“Source” seems to be the definition selected by most egalitarian authors as the best alternative to “head” for kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3. But is it? The translation of “head” is applied the same way between a husband and wife as it is between Christ and the church, and God and Christ, i.e., in each case it can be said “one submits to another.” People would easily understand this comparison. However, if “source” is used for kephale, it needs different modifiers for each comparison to define in what sense one is the source of the other. It is obvious that there can be an element of source involved in each relationship and the concept of source is a significant and vital part of Christ’s relationship to the church. However, the relationships are much different in their sourcing. For instance:
The husband is the source of his wife in that Eve was made from Adam’s side.
Christ was the source of man at his creation in that Christ made man’s body and breathed life into him.
Christ is the source of the church in that He is her creator and her source of life.
God is the source of Christ in that He sent His Son into the world as Savior.
Trombley[93] gives no documentation for the definitions he assumes for kephale, even though he refers to them as “common Greek meanings.” All of his examples are exactly the same as those presented by the Mickelsens in their 1986 work[94], while Cunningham[95] refers to the Mickelsens’ work for his meanings for kephale. Grudem[96] maintains that the Mickelsens’ definitions of “exalted originator and completer” and “base or derivation” are in no lexicon and that these authors offer no evidence of examples from Greek literature either. They offer only one lexicon (Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek) that lists “source” as a possible translation for kephale. The other definitions offered for kephale appear to be even less common, if indeed they ever existed beyond the imaginations of some writers.
Grudem[97] presents a 1997 letter from P.G.W. Glare that addresses the Liddell-Scott-Jones handling of kephale. Glare is one of the world’s leading Greek lexicographers and was editor of the LiddellScott-Jones Lexicon at the time of the letter. Glare wrote regarding kephale that, “The entry under this word in LSJ is not very satisfactory...kephale is the word normally used to translate rosh, and this does seem frequently to denote leader or chief without much reference to its original anatomical sense, and here it seems perverse to deny authority.” Then Glare adds the following comment, “the supposed sense ‘source’ of course does not exist and it was at least unwise of Liddell-Scott to mention the word.” LSJ is the only place “source” is offered as a possible meaning for kephale.
Furthermore, in the Liddel-Scott-Jones Lexicon the primary definition of kephale is “the head of a man or beast.”[98] A secondary definition entitled, “extremity of things” has five sub-definitions. The fourth one, the only one listing “source” as part of it, is “in plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (in singular, mouth).” The scriptural usage of kephale is singular in all cases. “Source” then has three strikes against it; one, it is mentioned in only one lexicon whose current editor, P.G.W Glare, says regarding “source,” that it “does not exist;” two, it is listed in the lexicon for things not for people; and three, it is defined for plural applications. On this basis, if one wanted to use a secondary definition, the only one applicable would be “mouth of a river.” Mouth does not fit in the kephale passages at all.
Consider again Paul’s words in Ephesians:
...which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
When Trombley[99] looked at Paul’s words in Ephesians 1, he seemed to acknowledge that kephale can mean headship:
“The authority of Christ, established in verses 20-21, is extended to every extremity from crown (head) to feet – including the church which is His body.”
Sometimes the obvious meaning of Scripture just becomes too much for those who want it to support their predetermined perspectives.
Trombley[100] makes a big deal out of “economic and functional subordination.” Essentially, he says that Jesus was under His Father’s authority only for His life on earth. He writes later, that this submitting/authority kind of relationship with the Father didn’t continue after He rose and was seated with His Father. Well, aren’t we dealing with the relationship between men and women here on earth in most of the Bible, especially in the contested verses? God’s order for marriage was defined only for our life on earth (Matthew 22:30).
In the Kingdom of God people who are equals relate to one another differently than in the world. Headship expresses oneness and submission together in a way that hierarchy cannot. The Son and the Father are one, husband and wife are one, and Christ is one with His body. Yet submission is clearly a component of each of these relationships. Hierarchy establishes a sense of superiority or inferiority in relationships, while headship does not and should not.
Some people say that “head” is synonymous with superior rank. This is not necessarily true. I believe that in marriage it deals with a relationship among equals (for example, Ephesians 5:21-24).
When Trombley[101] says that it often works out that husbands rule their wives as common chattel instead of loving them with Christian love, my questions is, “Why? Because God’s order is wrong or because of the self-centered desires of man?”
Many men would love a theology that obliterates gender distinctions so that they can justify abdicating their places as heads of their homes. This approach minimizes their responsibility and accountability. They could even define their shirking as showing “God-kind-of-love.” Too often men have no desire to lead, even where they are obviously supposed to even by worldly standards. Often children are raised with little or no input from their fathers because they have abdicated their place in their children’s lives. I believe much of the crime and moral decay in our country has resulted from such abdication. This has been especially true in homes where the fathers have physically deserted their families or severely abused their wife and/or children. God’s-kind-of-love can best be expressed by those who are willingly and lovingly serving in their places in God’s Divine Order
Other men easily gravitate toward a role in which husbands dominate in their marriage from a position of superiority. They could then force every decision and compel their wives to obey. This approach often reveals a strong male ego that fails to express the sacrificial love God wants from the husband. The result is a harsh, unyielding family environment.
Consider what Peter Scheman[102] has to say about headship and love: Some people “presuppose that for a mutual reciprocating love relationship to be meaningful there must not be an order or ranking in that relationship. This presupposition, of course, is the touchstone of evangelical feminism. Any type of subordination, or ordered relationship, automatically implies the inferiority of that one who subordinates himself (herself), whether willingly or not.” This idea “is at odds with the relationship between the Father and the Son during the incarnation. Certainly there was a sense of loving reciprocity between them during that time (see John 6:38; 7:16; 8:28-29; 14:10; 15:10; 17:4; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). If nothing else, the incarnation proves that it is possible, and in the case of the atonement even necessary, to have an ordered relationship (wherein one submits willingly to another) and still have a mutually reciprocating love relationship.”
I discussed the Greek word kephale with Dr. Kook, whom I mentioned on page 53. He said that using classical or secular Greek to translate words in Scripture can be very misleading. Paul and the other writers were speaking to a Jewish/Hellenistic culture which would have had many different uses for words other than secular Greek. The word kephale is a good example. His sources show that kephale was in fact translated “leader” in the Jewish/Hellenistic culture more than the other meanings offered by Trombley.
But what of secular Greek? Grudem[103] ran a computer search of a wide range of ancient Greek literature from the 8th Century B.C. to the 4th Century A.D. It included 36 writers of major importance. In this search he found 2336 examples of Hebrew words translated as kephale. There were 49 occurrences where kephale had the meaning “person of superior authority or rank, or ‘ruler,’ ‘ruling part’.” He found “no convincing examples where kephale meant ‘source.’” Coupling this with the obvious use of kephale as head in Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:22-23 and Colossians 2:10 and the eight (Trombley’s number) to 16 (Grudem’s number) translations of “authority” as kephale in the Septuagint (see below), the least one can say is that the translation of kephale as “head” is one of a number of possibilities, even though it might not be the most common. (The most common usage probably is the physical head of a man or beast.) But why should Paul choose a meaning for a word that may not be its most common usage? I believe the reason Paul did so was God’s desire for a special word to define male headship in the home. One that would capture His relationship to the church; one that would carry with it love, oneness, and the heart of one who serves rather than one who seeks to dominate harshly. He did that with kephale.
Kephale isn’t the only word that may have been translated differently than its common usage in Greek culture. Another Greek word used in Scripture with a meaning not in use by the Greeks of Biblical time is charis (grace). The secular Greeks used charis to describe a graceful (or beautiful) dance or a gracious (or delightful) hostess. These are meanings still in use today. God in the New Covenant added a completely new flavor to grace to describe His unmerited favor.
R. C. Trench[104] describes grace (charis) as one of the Greek words adopted to Christianity. He states that such words are “glorified and transformed, seeming to have waited for adoption of them, to come to their full right, and to reveal all of the depth and the riches of meaning which they contained, or might be made to contain.” Is it farfetched to think that God would choose kephale to represent a husband’s relationship to his wife rather than archon or exousia? Which word can best represent His heart?
This idea of God transforming Greek words to bring a new, rich fullness to them for the New Covenant answers a question related to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. A number of writers point to the way the Hebrew word rosh (head) was translated in the Septuagint in order to question the translation of kephale in the New Testament as “head” in English. Trombley[105] notes that rosh was clearly translated kephale only eight times (Grudem claims 16, see Appendix III) where it could mean “superior rank” out of 180 instances where rosh was used. Although the writers don’t discuss what Greek words were used or how many times each was used, they imply that archon and exousia were the most likely. Considering that the Septuagint was translated between 250 and 150 years before the birth of Jesus, it is not a surprise that they did so. The meanings of “head” for authority and “grace” for unmerited favor did not come into their fullness until the New Covenant. Because they did their translation about 200 years before Christ, the translators of the time of the Septuagint would not have known God’s heart for New Testament leaders. Actually, it is amazing that it was translated kephale even eight times! It is interesting to note that there are no examples in the Septuagint where kephale is used for source.[106]
Grudem, in his extensive evaluation of kephale, arrives at the conclusion that even if “source” were adopted for some uses of kephale, there would be no evidence of it meaning “source” without the added nuance of authority or rule. His full conclusion is shown in Appendix IV.
The preponderance of evidence is that kephale is properly translated “head.” I believe that God chose kephale because He wanted a word with a very special meaning that is not found in any other word for authority. It is a word that in the marriage relationship reveals redemptive love.
Ephesians five is in part a defining chapter for the Greek word kephale. Let’s examine the context of these passages to help establish its meaning. Paul exhorts us in four areas before presenting kephale: to “walk as children of light” (verse 8), to prove “what is acceptable to the Lord” (verse 10), to “walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise” (verse 15), and to “understand what the will of the Lord is” (verse 17). He follows the introduction to the headship passages with a challenge in verse 20 that is to undergird these verses, i.e., to give “thanks always in all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” What follows must be significant in light of these exhortations. Verses 21-31, involving headship and submission, end with Paul’s statement in verse 32 that he is speaking primarily of a great mystery concerning Christ and the Church. The analogy between a husband and wife with Christ and His Church is not only vital to define the husband/wife relationship, but also to reveal the glorious mystery of Christ’s relationship to His body. As husband and wife relationships become more like God wants them to be, they will reveal the fulness of His relationship to the Church. Understanding what He wants in marriage is, therefore, critical to unveil the mystery, which emphasizes the need to exegete the passage carefully.
The “head over” of Ephesians 1:22, the call for wives to submit to their husbands because the husband is head of the wife in Ephesians 5:22-23, and the reference to Sarah’s obeying Abraham, calling him lord in 1 Peter 3:6, clearly establish that kephale expresses a form of redemptive authority. Worldly minds can’t understand it; feminist theology can’t fathom it; it is not like any other authority. Kephale authority is defined by the heart. It is captured in the passages of Ephesians 5 that tie a husband’s headship to Christ’s, a relationship filled with a sacrificial love, love that makes a husband willing to lay down his life for his wife. It clearly states that “husbands must learn to reveal through a headship relationship with their wives, Christ’s love for His Church.” There are two essential elements to this kind of loving commitment: to be responsible and accountable for leadership that has no flavor of hierarchy or superiority, and to be a servant/leader with a loving and giving heart. If men lived up to the heart of this word, even a fraction of the way God lives up to His commitments to us, the church would be transformed!
The heart of the wife’s submission similarly is to mirror the Church’s willing submission to Jesus. Both the husband and wife should respond to their calls with a heart filled with thankfulness to God for the wisdom revealed in the way He defines the marriage relationship in Ephesians 5.
There are those who would trifle with the relationship between Christ and the church expressed in Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 in order to facilitate changing the character of Biblical submission between husbands and wives. In an article by Randy Stinton[107] it is reported that Alan Padgett from Luther Seminary argues that “not only does the church submit to Christ, but Christ submits to the Church by His death for the church. Since Christ serves the church”... by dying for it, “He is submitting to the church. By redefining the word ‘submit,’ Padget potentially has turned the entire Christian life on its head. How then will we understand the Lordship of Christ? To whom is our obedience required? Will we speak of Christ obeying us.” Obviously, Christ’s dying for the Church is not an act of submission to us, but to the Father. It is an expression of His profound love for us. He is the head of the Church. It is His Church. His place as leader of the Church includes His ultimate sacrifice and in it a demonstration of the humility that is to be a characteristic of all those in leadership in His Church.
In another article[108] Randy Stinton reports a similar theology relative to the Godhead from an evangelical feminist, Royce Gruenler. She proposes that not only does the Father submit to the Son, but the Father is dependent upon the Son. One of her points relates to John 5:22-23, which states that “the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.” Gruenler contends that this passage means that the Father is dependent on the Son for all judging. Stinton claims that Gruenler, “misrepresents the concept of delegated authority.” She misses the fact that, “within the Godhead there is equality of essence but subordination of the Son to the Father with regard to role and function.” Stinton observes from John 5:18-30 that there, “is full equality of the Son to the Father along side His uniform desire to submit to the will, word, and ways of His Father. All that the Son has can be traced back to the Father. The Son cannot judge unless the Father gives Him all judgment. The Son does nothing on His own initiative but carries out everything in accordance with the will of the Father. There is a clear order of relations that does not diminish or negate the mutual, essential equality between the Father and the Son.”
To further dilute headship, some authors point out, correctly, that the words, “be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ” in Ephesians 5:21 speaks of mutual submission. But they then say that the directive in verse 22, “Wives submit to your husbands...,” is only an example of this mutual submission. It doesn’t place any special requirements on women that it doesn’t place on men. Instead, I believe that this passage is stating that there are special and individual ways for husbands and wives to submit to one another, both relating to issues of the heart. These special ways are highlighted in 1 Peter 3:1-7. The “likewise” in verses 1 and 7 refers back to the words “submit” and “submission” in verses 13 and 18 of 1 Peter 2 (see below). For the wives, Peter speaks of submission with “a gentle and quiet spirit (or heart),” using the same root word for “quiet” as that translated “silence” for women in church meetings in 1 Timothy 2:12. Peter then relates a wife’s submission to her husband to Sarah’s obedience to Abraham. The Greek word for “submissive” (NT:5293) in 1 Peter 3:1 and 3:5 has the same root word as that used in Ephesians 5:22 for “submit” (see below), tying a woman’s submission back to headship.
2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme...18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh...3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive (NT:5293) to your own husbands...4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God...5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive (NT:5293) to their own husbands,6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord ...7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
(1 Peter 2:13,18, 3:1,4,5-6,7)
Wives, submit (NT:5293) to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church...
The passage beginning “Husbands, likewise” in 1 Peter 3:7 speaks differently to husbands than to wives about submission. Peter directs husbands to live with their wives in an understanding way and to honor them. Submission of this kind is a heart issue, addressing the spirit with which a husband relates to his wife. This ties in with God’s call for husbands to love their wives in Ephesians 5. In a way, Ephesians 5:22-28 also addresses individual ways for husbands and wives to submit to one another similar to 1 Peter 3. In Ephesians 5:22 a wife is instructed to submit to her husband as her head, while in verse 29 a husband is to “submit” to his wife by nourishing and cherishing her as is own body. Both husband and wife are to submit with reverence in their hearts for Christ. But these special ways don’t negate the fact that a woman is specifically instructed in Ephesians 5 to submit to her husband as her head and in 1 Peter 3 to obey him, not vice-versa.
Is there not a consistent message throughout the New Testament relating to women submitting to men, whether they are husbands or church leaders? I believe there is and that it addresses heart attitudes in all cases. There is no directive for anyone to make someone else submit. When people demand or force submission, they create resentments, a harsh environment, and, in extreme cases, rebellion! I believe many problems in the church and in marriages can be traced to a concept of forced submission. Each of us is to look to the attitudes of his/her own heart relative to submission in the light of God’s instructions for us in His Word.
The potential results of abrogating headship from marriage is well described in the following article:[109]
“Mark Chanski, a pastor in Holland Michigan, thinks that many Christian men fall far short of the Biblical vision of what he calls “husbanding.” Several significant cultural factors have contributed to this reality, but Chanski sees deeper theological issues at stake. Taking his cue from billiards, Chanski describes weak husbands as “passive nice guys,’ who have fallen prey to “passive-purple-four-ballism.” The purple ‘4’ ball on the pool table is passive, and so are too many men, Chanski argues. The constant imbibing of feminism, mixing together with man’s native sinfulness, has resulted in an epidemic of passive-purple-four-ballism in modern marriages. Men have permitted themselves to be emasculated into a company of wimp eunuchs, who believe it should be their goal to strive toward passive nice guys in their homes...
“Adam has become the poster-boy for today’s fashionably easygoing husband. Instead of assertively standing at the forefront of his marriage, talking nose-to-nose with the crafty serpent, he’s content to sit back and let Eve do the talking. And when Eve gave her husband the fruit, instead of standing up like a man and boldly refusing to transgress God’s word, he passively caved-in to the unprincipled and misguided desires of his wife (cf. Genesis 3:1-6). As a result, Adam cursed his family. This sad Genesis portrait epitomizes most modern marriages. And it’s our fault, men! We’ve got to reject modern thinking and take up Biblical thinking.”
I recently heard of a Christian man who would not make any decisions or take any action unless his wife fully agreed with him. He said he did this to promote oneness in his marriage. Promoting oneness and including one’s wife in decisions are both important in husband/wife relationships and praying for agreement when there is a difference of opinion is a necessity. But this man essentially submitted all decisions to his wife’s point of view, enabling him to avoid responsibility for any decisions. Taking responsibility for one’s actions is an important part of headship.
In addition to being responsible for his place in the home, a husband must not abuse his headship by promoting his own needs and desires. In addition, he should not vent his frustrations by assuming a place of superiority to compensate for the lack of a position of responsibility in other areas of his life. Husbands are not superior to their wives. A husband is to live with his wife in a way that honors her and is to try to understand her emotional, physical and mental needs (1 Peter 3:7), doing his best to meet these needs within the bounds of good Christian stewardship. Neglect in these areas can hinder his prayers and the oneness God wants to build in the marriage relationship.
Husbands are responsible to God for how they lead and will have to give account to Him for their headship. Do they lead by example in their commitment to God and in bearing the fruit of the Spirit? Are they humble and gentle in spirit, and do they cover their family in prayer? Do they love their wives as Christ loved by laying down His life for us? Are they alert to demonic influences? Being a godly husband means being strong in faith, uncompromising in truth, and willing to take a strong stand against sin and the tendency to compromise with worldly influences when they encroach on his family.
As discussed on page 79, headship involves husbands being responsible for Christ-like leadership, protection, and provision in the home. As can be seen, this description also applies to elders in the church. Husbands and elders bear similar responsibilities for the overall pattern of life in their areas of oversight. A significant function of elders is to equip the saints they lead “for the work of ministry” (see discussion on pages 8-10). This equipping includes allowing the saints to make decisions for things related to their calling and gifting from God and providing a church environment that encourages everyone to use their gifts. Similarly, an important part of husbanding and fathering is to encourage wives and children to mature spiritually and emotionally to the point where they can make decisions on their own that are related to their calling and gifting. If they have to run continually to “Dad” for everyday decisions (or are afraid to), he is probably not doing his job right. Learning to delegate is difficult for some men; assuming responsibility for their own decisions is difficult for some women and children; both are important characteristics of healthy, fruitful family life. Such delegation is emphasized in the following section.
How does the Proverbs 31 wife fit into the concept of the husband as head of the home? She had considerable responsibility and authority inside and outside of the home. Some think the Proverbs 31 wife isn’t congruous with the Old or New Testament interpretations of a submissive wife. But maybe she is. Look at 1 Timothy 5:14:
So I would have the younger widows marry, bear children, and manage (NT:3616 – oikodespoteo) their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.
The Greek word oikodespoteo is translated as follows:
Revised Standard Version: Rule
New American Standard. Keep
Concordant Literal and NIV: Manage
King James Version: Rule, guide
Interlinear Greek: Mistress of the house
NT:3616 – oikodespoteo – to be the head of (i.e. rule) a family.
Literally it means house (oikos) despot (despoteo) or house master or lord.
How do we reconcile this word with the wife submitting to her husband and the Greek word proistemi (NT:4291) used for men in 1 Timothy 3? In verses 4 and 12 Paul writes that elders and deacon must proistemi their households well. If this is a requirement of elders and deacons, I believe it is also for all husbands.
The Greek word proistemi is translated as follows
RSV, NAS, KJ, NIV: Manage
Concordant Literal: Control, preside
Interlinear Greek: Rule
From the definition in Appendix I, prostemi literally means to stand before, that is, to lead by example. Its meaning also carries with it an element of presiding as eldership does in the church (see 1 Timothy 3:4-5).
What are the differences between oikodespoteo and proistemi relating to a husband being the head of his wife and a wife submitting to her husband? How can a husband be the head of his wife and his wife rule the home? To me oikodespoteo speaks of a delegated responsibility that is directed by God. It is the same responsibility that God assigned to man when He “gave him dominion over the earth” in Genesis 1:26. God obviously has dominion over the earth (the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof), but He delegated responsibility for the earth to man. When Adam disobeyed the Lord, sin and chaos came into the world because of his disobedience.
In speaking to marriage God called man head of his wife, but He also desires that husbands should delegate to their wives the place of ruling (oikodespoteo) their home. Thus a man is to oversee or preside over many areas of his home through his wife. He must allow her the freedom and authority that God gives her in her family through her gifting and feminine nature and must not usurp her place. He is responsible for oversight of all things in the family and should not only give to his wife the position God wants, but should encourage, nurture, and help her grow in her areas of responsibility.
But what are the areas that the woman is to rule over? Specifics are very individual and hinge somewhat on both their talents. Together they must find through prayer and open discussions what God has for her in the home. It will most likely include, but not necessarily be limited to, running the daily routines of the home and being given freedom to make decisions necessary to run and decorate the home.
This is not a unique concept. We see it in Proverbs 31. We see it also in the New Testament. Jesus is the head of the church, the head of all things, including all principalities and powers. But if we consider the following verses in order, we end up with His people, the bride of the lamb, “reigning forever and ever.” The combination of these verses essentially says that His people have been delegated authority from God and are to rule and reign under and together with Jesus, forever and ever:
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church...
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You take care of him? You have made him a little lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of Your hands. You have put all things in subjection under his feet.
You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.”
They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever. (
Submission is one thing; respect is another. One author has questioned the passage directing women to respect their husbands.
Ephesians 5:33 below appears to say that a husband is to love his wife as himself and a wife is to respect her husband. But does it? Not according to Cunningham and Hamilton[110] who propose that the Greek word hina in “let the wife see that (Gr – hina) she respects her husband” in Ephesians 5:33 should be changed. They state that in the Greek, “This phrase is introduced by the Greek word (referring to hina) that means ‘in order that.’ This is a dependent clause, built upon the first half of verse 33. Paul tells the husband to love his wife in order that she may respect him.” The passage reads as follows in the NKJV:
Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that (hina) she respects her husband.
If this passage were translated as the authors suggest, it would read something like the following:
Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and in order that the wife may respect her husband.
Hina can be translated “in order that.” But there are two complications with their theory. With the choice of “in order that” for hina, the sentence is only grammatically correct if the “and” is left out. But it is there (see the dé [NT:1161] in the interlinear Greek below). The “and” also makes the phrase about wives respecting their husbands an independent clause relative to the first half of verse 33, not a dependent one as they state.
The interlinear Greek[111] translates Ephesians 5:33 as follows:
| Pleén |
| 4133 |
| Nevertheless |
| kaí |
| 2532 |
| – |
| humeís |
| 5210 |
| of you |
| hoi |
| 3588 |
| – |
| kath |
| 2596 |
| every |
| héna |
| 1520 |
| one |
| hékastos |
| 1538 |
| in particular |
| teén |
| 3588 |
| – |
| heautoú |
| 1438 |
| his |
| gunaíka |
| NT:1135 |
| Wife |
| hoútoos |
| 3379 |
| so |
| agapátoo |
| 25 |
| let love |
| hoos |
| 5613 |
| even as |
| heautón |
| 1438 |
| himself; |
| hee |
| 3588 |
| the |
| dé |
| 1161 |
| and |
| guneé |
| NT:1135 |
| wife |
| – |
| 9999 |
| see |
| Hina |
| 2443 |
| that |
| fobeétai |
| 5399 |
| she reverence |
| – |
| 9999 |
| her |
| tón |
| 3588 |
| – |
| ándra |
| NT:435 |
| husband |
I mailed a request to the Greek department of a well known Christian university to ask about the translation of hina as “in order that” in this passage. The following is their reply:
“The Greek word in question, hina, has a wide spread of meanings in Greek of which ‘in order that’ is but one, and in the context rather improbable. “All grammars I have consulted for both Classical and New Testament Greek without exception state that the construction in this verse is as a softer equivalent to a command = ‘see to it that...’
“All translations I have looked at, starting with the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and others, again without exception, understand the phrase the same way. Why should we rule out the translation ‘in order that’? The basic reason is that the phrase involving the woman is coordinate with the phrase involving the man, not subordinate. This is indicated by 1) the word order, since when it means ‘in order that’ it normally begins the phrase. 2) by the conjunction ‘de’ which may be translated ‘on the other hand.’ In such situations the whole phrase would be translated ‘...let the husband love his wife as himself, and on the other hand let the wife (see to it that) she reverences (lit. fears) her husband.’
“The interpretation that the husband should love his wife ‘in order that’ she may respect him, though remotely possible, is improbable for the reasons stated.”
I looked at the following additional versions of the Bible for usage of the Greek word hina in the contested verse and found the following translations:
ASV: “(see) that”
CL: “that”
NAS updated: “see to it that”
NAS: “see to it that”
RSV: “see that”
TLB: “see to it that”
The translation proposed by the authors is hardly convincing. (I do not question that a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church whether or not she respects him. Such love would encourage and help her to respect him, but her respecting him isn’t to hinge on his loving her, as I read the passage.)
The following passages show representative uses for hina where its being translated as “in order that” wouldn’t make sense:
The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that (hina) You should come under my roof.
(Matthew 8:8 )
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if (hina) a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Moreover it is required in stewards that (hina) one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court.
I urge you, brethren – you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints – that (hina) you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.
In a few passages, such as the following ones, hina can mean “in order that:”
...begged Him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter lies at the point of death. Come and lay Your hands on her, that (“in order that”) she may be healed, and she will live.
And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to Your disciples, that (“in order that”) they should cast it out, but they could not.”
Ephesians 5:33 is definitely part of the first group of Scriptures, in that an appropriate translation for hina in this passage is “that.” It is does not fit at all into the second group.
The call of men to be elders and heads of their homes are both parts of God’s divine order. There are many people who take exception to these arrangements because they don’t think it is fair to women. (Our idea of fairness is at times at odds with what God defines as fair.) But whenever God’s order is violated, the peace and security of His people are threatened. Too often even small changes by man in God’s plans snowball into drastic compromises with the world’s degenerating morals. “His ways are far above our ways” is not an idle Proverb. It is the nature of the divide between God and man. When man’s ego challenges God’s ways, our relationship with Him suffers and we open our lives to the lies and schemes of Satan.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0043 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page