Head Wounds
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:3
Head – Oh my, what difficulties this verse can cause! So much confusion, misapplication and down-right persecution can be traced to a non-rabbinic interpretation of Sha’ul’s comment. Combined with a few other gems from the Pauline letters, the church marched to the tune of Plato and Aristotle’s misogynist drumbeat. Unfortunately, in some places it still does.
Let’s see if we can untangle at least a little bit of this mess. Paul (Sha’ul to his Hebrew buddies) does not think like a Greek. That should be no surprise by now. Eastern Semitic rabbinic interpretation and exegesis is not like Western Greek philosophical exegesis. So, it is simply impossible to apply Greek categories to Sha’ul’s rabbinic pronouncements and hope to have any appreciation at all for what he really says. In this case, Sha’ul’s entire conceptualization of the relationships between men and women is anchored in the Torah, not in Platonic philosophy. Sha’ul is a fully compliant, Torah observant Jew. He accepted the Torah as the words of God. Nothing he says could ever disagree with his own Scriptures, especially with the Torah. So, if we want to know what he says here, we must first read it as a Torah observant Jew would read it. That starts with noticing that kephale (head) in Greek is not the same as rosh in Hebrew.
Kephale means head, but in what sense? Does it mean head like the head of the military or the head of the government, or does it mean head as in “headwaters” of a river? One meaning is about authority; the other about source. Gilbert Bilezikian has analyzed every instance of the Greek word kephale in ancient Greek literature. He concludes, “There seems to be no instance in profane Greek literature where a ruler or a hierarch is referred to as head” with the word kephale. Further study shows that the writers of the LXX use more than a dozen different words for head as authority, only using kephale a few times. In fact, Bilezikian finds only three cases out of 180 where the LXX clearly uses kephale for authority. Apparently, these translators chose to avoid this meaning of kephale. Furthermore, when we look at the use of kephale in the New Testament, we find kephale is most often used in the common Hebrew sense of source, not authority. This is especially true in Sha’ul’s comment here. If we read this text from a rabbinic point of view, the three part hierarchy makes sense. If we read it from a Greek point of view, it doesn’t. Let’s see why.
Sha’ul lists three pairs of words in this hierarchy: Christ-man, man-woman, God-Christ. But this order makes no sense at all if Sha’ul is building a hierarchy of authority. If that were the case, the order should be God-Christ, Christ-man and man-woman (in descending order). But even this has internal difficulties. Is God the authority over Christ? Not according to Bible. The Father has put all things under the authority of the Son. The Son has been granted all authority. Furthermore, the Father and the Son are one. How are we to understand the biblical view of Christ’s authority if Sha’ul claims God is the kephale (authority over) Christ?
But what happens when we read the text as a rabbi? Kephale becomes rosh as “source”. The hierarchy makes sense. The source of the new man is indeed the Messiah. The source of the incarnate Christ is indeed the Father. And, as Genesis 2 clearly reveals, the source of the woman is the man.In fact, Sha’ul’s sequence is also chronological (as Bilezikian notes).Yeshua is the chronological source of all Mankind (“in Him were all things created”).Adam is the chronological source of woman (“because she was taken out of man”).And God is the chronological source of the Messiah (“in the fullness of time”).
What’s the bottom line? This verse cannot be used to justify the authority of men over women. Such an idea is rooted in Greek philosophy and misogyny, not in Scripture. While this is only one verse, upon further exploration we would find that no Scripture suggests the male has a divine prerogative to dominate a female. In fact, Yeshua specifically denies any such distinctions within the Body. The travesty of the Church is its willingness to embrace a pagan philosophy rather than listen to the Holy One of Israel. It’s time to seek repentance – and change!
Topical Index: authority, kephale, rosh, source, rabbinic, women, 1 Corinthians 11:3
For today’s photo, click here (Bayonne, Haiti)
I love this stuff. I was a Bible major and have a M.A. in Theological Studies but never went into the Scriptures with a Hebrew mindset. I took over three years of Greek but never took Hebrew (and the Greek hasn’t help me much at all really). Those this study have any implications on women and the ministry?
Skip,
As with many things Paul teaches, we find people taking the context and shaping it to their worldview. It makes me wonder: As the Church, are we more in love with Paul’s teachings than the teachings of Paul? Have we built a church culture that puts more emphasis on the writings of Paul than on the life of Jesus?
Anthony
I would guess you can answer this question yourself. If you consider how much emphasis is placed on Paul’s teachings (not Sha’ul, the rabbi) and how much of that teaching is filtered through centuries of Greek categories, then it seems clear to me that the Church does not embrace its own Lord, Yeshua. In fact, much of the time the Church denies what Yeshua taught. Over the next few weeks we will be looking even deeper into this tragic situation. Stick with us.
And once again the heart of the matter sneaks out … does it not?
The church does not = Israel!
The church does not = “the Body of Mashiach”
The church has rejected its heritage
The institutional religions (the church) in fact are leading people away from reconciliation … away from Y’shua (salvation)
Undoubtedly some are realizing that a tragedy of Biblical proportions has been taking place and as in the days of Noach … nearly everyone is a sleep at the wheel!
Who will cry out so that those with ears will hear and obey …. Sh’ma!
And please do not take this exhortation as plain old anti-church bantering …. this is the battle against powers and principalities which Sha’ul spoke of …. we have become so dull that we can not even recognize that the enemy has been let into the camp and continues to spread its vile poison!
I regret if this offends any brothers or sisters at TW but what are we to do … close our eyes and keep quiet?
I appreciate your sensitivity to differences between languages. Further research, amply reflected in the Third Edition of my Beyond Sex Roles, establishes that the meaning of kephale defined within its New Testament use never refers to an authority role of Christ in regard to the church. It consistently emphasizes his redemptive function as servant provider of salvation, of nurture, growth, life and love. According to the New Testament, to be “head” for either Christ or husbands never means to rule or to lead, but always, to give self-sacrificially and to serve. The English language inverses the meaning of “head,” turning it upon its head. This can easily be verified by reviewing the instances of the use of head in Ephesians and Colossians. Kephale in those texts would be accurately translated as “servant provider.” Thank you for your work.
Dear Dr. Bilezikian,
It’s an honor to have you comment on our humble blog. I am so glad that I found your work (even if it is only the second edition). It squares completely with the recent work of Rabbi Bob Gorelik (The Captive Woman). Both are stepping stones for the book I am desperately trying to finish on the Hebrew concept of ‘ezer kenegdo. If you don’t object, I would like to use this comment in a reference in my book. Some day perhaps we will have a chance to meet in person.
Skip, first of all sorry for not many comments I’ve been recovering from oral surgery and not feeling too good. This is excellent work, I thank you for your messages they are inspiring and clarify a lot of mis interpretations that I have heard in the past.
Once again
Thank you
Manny
Skip, the title of this Today’s Word — “Head Wounds” is brilliant. How many billions of wounds have been inflicted, and/or even encouraged, because of this misunderstanding?
PS – Also very cool to have Dr. Bilezikian comment on this. 🙂
As one new to Hebrew world view, having been taught a rather vicious and hard Greek view about women and my wife, the idea of ‘source’ never entered the conversation. The teachings of ‘source’ where ‘authority’ in the assembly is contested, takes away much of what makes people dislike ‘church.’ I trust YHWH will permit me time to correct my teaching and ask forgiveness of those whom I have abused. This whole thought of ‘source’ allows shalom to have it’s full work in the assembly. This gives me relief in my being and I can stop fighting. THANK YOU !!
Bob
Shalom Skip,
I hate to be the contrarian in this issue, especially since some much of the other stuff you write is quite excellent…, but I have to disagree with at least half of your “bottom line” from above. 🙁
Authority of a man over his wife is practically ubiquious though out all of the Word of Elohim. YHWH has authority over everything precisely because He is the source of everything. Because He is The Father, He and only He has the authority and ability to extend that authority to The Son. Yahushua’s witness was that He was always doing the will of The Father. Neither did He see Himself equal to the Father (even though they are one).
Phil 2:5-7NASB
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men..
[The “inequality” within Elohim merely relates to authority] Also note:
1 Cor 15:28NASB
28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.
When Paul did his midrash in I Cor 11 (also Eph 5), he was indeed explaining the issue of proper authority of men and women (and also how that is done in a loving/caring manner- ie like Messiah over the Church/Assembly). His logic (yes, even using Hebrew logic) is that we understand Messiah’s authority/headship over us, likewise is the man’s authority/headship over his wife; and to put the exclaimation on the concept- even Messiah is under authority/headship of GOD (The Father). [ Kal va-chomer ]
The Holy One has given us the husband-wife relationship to exemplify the relationship of Messiah and His Bride. Yes one day we will be one with Him, yet even then we will be submitting to His authority. We are to learn this relationship in the home- how to be one (and equal too) yet authority is given to the man and the woman is to submit to him. This is to be done in a godly, loving manner as the Holy One Himself demonstrates. There is godly male authority without the need to “dominate a female”…, yet authority never the less. It is the example of ALL of Scripture.
There is a reason that Chava came out of Adam. There is a reason YHWH made all of the Biblical covenants with men. There is a reason the Torah gives fathers and husbands authority to anull the vows of their daughters and wives. There is a reason Yahushua, despite having some female disciples, only chose men to be in His inner core.
The issue is NOT that women are inferior in ability to men (in fact they were designed to fill in any gaps we have). The issue is NOT that the Almighty loves or values men above women. The issue is NOT that men and women are unequal in the sight of the Holy One. If we are one and both necessary in order to reflect His glory and image, how could one part be valued above the other necessary part?
The issue simply is that there is a relationship between the Creator and the created, and it is a relationship consistant with authority and submission. Outside of man, all creation does (submission) exactly what it was designed (authorized) to do. Only in mankind, reflecting the image of the Almighty, is there the ability not to do what we were created for, that is to say we have been given the ability to not submit to authority… to be our own authority instead.
This really is not about men “dominating a female”. It is about responsiblity, love and care for those given under our authority- to do them good, even at cost to self. There is NO commandment for a man to dominate his wife or to make his wife obey him. Remember, the Holy One Himself does not force us to obey Him! But the man is given the responsibility of authority, to be used in a loving manner.
This is also about learning to submit to the one in authority. The Apostolic writers make it clear that the ‘mitzvah’ is for the wife to submit to her husband, but not for the husband to force submission (see above). We , as man and wife, are given roles from which all mankind can learn how to properly relate to our Creator. He has ALL authority and yet uses it in a non-coersive manner. We are given total choice, yet we are called to submit to His ways.
It takes BOTH genders to adequately reflect the image of Elohim, because He contains the traits and roles of both as a unified entity- YHWH: Father/Son/Spirit. He is both masculine as well as feminine. He both directs and submits. He is ONE. When we are one with Him, He will direct and we will submit. Where are we to learn this outside of the holy relationship of marriage and the roles He chose for both genders? [This too is Hebrew logic 😀 ]
Hi Tom,
You’ve made a very good case for a traditional patriarchal relationship IMO, but my relationship has never quite worked that way, for better and for worse 🙂
However, if I understand you correctly, I don’t think:
“It takes BOTH genders to adequately reflect the image of Elohim, because He contains the traits and roles of both as a unified entity- YHWH: Father/Son/Spirit.”
Rather I think each individual has both a masculine and feminine aspect to their “soul.”
And that each individual can adequately reflect the image of Elohim (or not) without being in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
I think each individual (male of female) can use Jesus as their model of “wholeness” and can learn to serve and direct inside and outside of marriage.
Just my opinion 🙂
Thanks for your response to this knotty issue. However, it seems to me that a great deal of confusion in the Body grows from not clearly distinguishing the difference between “authority” and “dominance.” You are correct. As I pointed out, no Scripture gives any man dominance over any woman. But biblical authority is not quite the same as the usual cultural assumptions about authority. This is clear from your citation of the Philippians text. Authority is very closely related to sacrifice, not power. Furthermore, as Dr. B and I both emphasize, the Greek term “kephale” is never used in the sense of authority. Authority is reserved for another word. So, it is quite unlikely that Paul would use this term as the equivalent of the Greek “exousiazo” when he had both terms readily available. The issue here is not the historical examples of choice of male disciples, etc. It is a linguistic issue – the wrong use and meaning attached to words that imply mistaken theology.
By the way, as you know, there are plenty of examples of women who exercised authority over men in the Hebrew Scriptures. It might not be the norm, but it is there nevertheless. In fact, even Adam backhandedly acknowledges the authority of Havvah when he offers his excuse to God.
Submission, on the other hand, applies equally to both sexes. Hypotasso is a characteristic of all followers. In fact, with the example of foot-washing, this just might be THE characteristic of true disciples. Humility and submission are not limited to females. Sha’ul’s argument about the analogy of Christ and the Church pointedly underscores the need for self-sacrifice, not self-aggrandizement.
Anyway, there is a lot more to say about all this. Hopefully, I will be able to finish the book soon. In it, I believe that I make the case that any real understanding of the Genesis account confirms the original role of the ‘ezer kenegdo as the spiritual director, a role which has been turned upside-down with the introduction of sin.
Hang on, please, until I have time to finish this.
I know I’m late in this, but I just wanted to thank you for this interpretation. I’ve got a lot to learn about interpreting with a Hebrew worldview, but this starts me down the road in a good way. The last church I was in is going into battle over this issue, because some of the Deacons want to appoint women as Deaconnesses. I’ve been trying to study this issue, but this worldview really changes things in looking at what Sha’ul is saying.
Thanks