This is part of a series on patriarchy, headship, and submission. See this index.

Over at the Christianity and Masculinity blog, Deep Strength writes in “Headship is still authority in marriage Part 3:”

Ho boy!

I recently did a topical 10-part series on mutual submission, focusing specifically on Wayne Grudem’s word studies on hypotassø and kephalē. I suspect that Deep Strength has not read the series, even though I responded specifically to Deep Strength’s comment in part 8:

Deep Strength is a big fan of Grudem’s work, and he is popular among conservative Evangelical Christians. Yet, after I had discussed Grudem’s ‘exhuastive’ academic work on hypotassø (‘submission’), I shared, in part 7, this comment by Grudem’s intellectual sparing partner, Richard S. Cervin:

And I concurred:

I also would not normally cast aspersions on another writer like this, but Grudem’s examination of the Greek literature is clearly poor scholarship. The errors he makes are obvious and egregious. Deep Strength’s defense of that ‘scholarship’ represents poor discernment on his part. More than likely, Deep Strength—like Jack @ Sigma Frame here—has failed to critically examine Grudem’s work because he was already in ideological agreement (i.e. confirmation bias).

In case you think I’m merely engaging in hyperbole, let me assure you that I am not. Over the years I’ve cited many scholars who hold viewpoints that I disagree with. It is my preference to cite the sources of my ideological opponents in order to show that those opponents are wrong using their own sources. But usually those sources are at least somewhat credible. This is not true of Grudem.

I’m not going to reexplain the problems with Grudem’s word studies, as I’ve already done so in the series. Regarding kephalē, I’ll merely cite the conclusion of part 8:

This is as generous as I can be. Deep Strength’s conclusion above is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a flawed word study. In short, contrary to his claim, the Greek literature overwhelmingly disfavors the definition of kephalē as connoting authority.

Deep Strength continues…

…by citing the following passages: 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter, and the Gospel of Matthew. Let’s take a look at them and evaluate Deep Strength’s arguments without assuming that Grudem is correct.

For those who do not know, there is no word in Greek for ‘headship.’ The word in Greek is just ‘head.’ Headship, or properly hierarchical leadership, is one of the meanings of the English and Hebrew words for ‘head.’ It is not the meaning of the ancient Greek word. Reading Paul’s use of ‘head’ as ‘headship’ is an anachronism. It is, by and large, taking the English meaning and applying it to the Greek word as if the two words in two different languages shared the same meaning. They did not in the ancient Greek and they still do not even in modern Greek.

This is known as the head-body metaphor, which I’ve previously written about here, where I show that the metaphor did not connote being under authority.

The metaphor is formally known as the ‘Head-Body Metaphor’ because there are different metaphorical uses involving the word ‘head’, such as Head-Feet and Head-Tail. These metaphors all use the word ‘head’ but the meaning of each metaphor is different. Obviously this means that the use of the word ‘head’ does not solely determine what the metaphor means, nor does the metaphor determine what the word ‘head’ must mean. This seemingly simple observation trips many people up, as it does Deep Strength.

Notice that Deep Strength claims that hair symbolized “being under authority.” But that’s not what Paul actually said: “symbol of authority on her head.” The reason Deep Strength didn’t simply repeat Paul’s words is because it isn’t clear from those actual words how you arrive at Deep Strength’s interpretation, especially in light of the entire context of the passage (which is about prophesy).

Scholars and theologians argue over what Paul meant because his Greek language use is ambiguous, unclear, and unusual. In fact, this passage is one of the most contested passages in the entire Bible due to its lack of clarity on multiple points. There are many different competing explanations for what Paul meant, and it is not clear which of the many options is the correct one. You can read one such analysis in “Hair Is A Covering,” where I illustrate the difficulty. This lack of clarify is why Deep Strength didn’t quote Paul’s words, but instead paraphrased them according to his predetermined theology.

This is also not a modern problem. In the late 4th century, some in the church began to argue as Deep Strength is doing now. John Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker, argued that this new view violated basic reason:

According to Chrysostom, Paul could not possibly have been referring to authority in the sense of hierarchical rule. Notice that Chrysostom understands Paul to be worried about honor not authority. That’s because in Chrysostom’s day, the word still implied the former, even as it would slowly change to the imply the latter in the medieval era.

Later in that same Homily, Chrysostom noted that it was not until after the fall of mankind that rule and subjection were in view. Consequently, Deep Strength’s association with the “Creation Order” cannot possibly necessarily imply authority. Indeed, such an explanation is deeply suspect.

Deep Strength’s explanation is, at best, speculative, so we’ll leave it at that.

Recall about how I indicates that Deep Strength gets tripped up over the various metaphors involving the word ‘head?’ This is an example of the Head-Feet metaphor. This specific use in context, regarding Jesus’ authority, is unambiguously about authority. But this tells us very little about other uses of ‘head,’ including other metaphors involving the word, such as the Head-Body metaphor.

But notice that when Deep Strength says “Paul is talking about Jesus’ dominion and authority” he knows this, not because of the metaphor, but because Paul used those actual words. Paul didn’t rely on the metaphor to imply rule, authority, power, and dominion, Paul used those words specifically and explicitly to describe Jesus.

This is important because it doesn’t establish that the word ‘head’ by itself means authority. For example, just because two words are used together in the same paragraph does not imply that they are semantically related (e.g. ‘death’ and ‘head’).

No Christian takes issue with Christ’s authority, which is the topic of the passage.

The issue is with Deep Strength’s speculation that Christ has authority because he is the head, a position that is not proven by this passage. Alternatives include (1) being the head because he has authority; (2) being both, and separately, the head and in authority because of a third causal factor (such as God’s appointment); and (3) being head completely separately from being in authority, as causually unrelated, but merely simultaneously existing, attributes. All four of these options are logically possible.

Deep Strength is trying to stretch the passage past what it is obviously speaking about, in order to justify is doctrinal presuppositions. That’s the issue I have with his approach. He makes it seem as if all you have to do is quote and read the passage in order to determine which of the four options is correct, but this is simply not true.

In summary, there are three reasons why we might conclude this passage is about authority:

Primary: because Paul explicitly uses words for authority and rule.

Secondary: because Paul uses a Head-Feet metaphor.

Tertiary: because Paul uses the word ‘head’.

These are listed in descending order of confidence, with the first being unambiguous, the second going either way, and with the third being mostly speculation. But remember that Deep Strength cited this passage in order to show that the tertiary option is the correct one. He clearly cannot establish this conclusion on this evidence alone. He would have been better off not citing this passage at all, rather than falsely portray his speculation as if it were more definitive.

Here we return to a Head-Body metaphor, which is notably different in context and tone from the Head-Feet metaphor. Unlike the latter, but just like 1 Corinthians 11, this lacks explicit references to rule, authority, power, and dominion. So even though the word ‘head’ is used for both metaphors, the sense is different.

We simply disagree that authority is implied. Unless one presumes so, there is no indication of authority at all in this citation. Deep Strength is seeing what he wants to see, not what is actually there. This is the same thing that Grudem did in his word studies. It is poor scholarship.

Deep Strength begins his citation of Ephesians 5 in v22. As I’ve pointed out many times in the past—including five different times in the series alone—this is a sentence fragment that lacks a verb in the original:

Citing v22 without v21 is nonsensical and ultimately changes the meaning of the passage from the original. It is highly dishonest to snip a sentence fragment out of context to try to establish an entire theological doctrine. Indeed, very nearly the entire concept of ‘headship’ falls apart if one merely quotes the sentence in full. I wrote about this deception in detail in “The Original Source Material.”

Deep Strength’s obfuscation of the passage hides the fact that the reference to ‘head’ is in the context of mutual submission. The English word for headship—implying a strict hierarchical authority leadership structure—is fundamentally incompatible with mutuality, which is why v21 is almost always left out of the quotation.

Did you notice that, like Ephesians 1, Paul associates the word ‘head’ with the word ‘dead?’ Should we conclude from this that death is commonly associated with headship? Obviously not. For the same reason, neither should Deep Strength conclude that ‘head’ is commonly associated with ‘headship.’ Much of Deep Strength’s speculation comes from failing to recognize that correlation does not imply causation.

In any case, this passage contains the Head-Body metaphor, but it also contains explicit references to thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. So as before, we have three reasons why we might conclude this passage is about authority:

Primary: because Paul explicitly uses words for authority and rule.

Secondary: because Paul uses a Head-Body metaphor.

Tertiary: because Paul uses the word ‘head’.

As before, the primary use governs our understanding of the passage. The other two explanations are much more speculative. But unlike the Head-Feet metaphor, there are many uses of the Head-Body metaphor that do not imply rule and authority, so we have lower confidence to justify the secondary explanation compared with the Head-Feet metaphor. We have even less confidence in the tertiary explanation..

We agree with Deep Strength that the passage is about authority. That is the only conclusion we can draw that does not involve speculation. But remember that Deep Strength cited this passage in order to show that the tertiary option is the correct one. He clearly cannot establish this conclusion on this evidence alone. He would have been better off not citing this passage at all, rather than falsely portray his speculation as if it were more definitive.

Regarding the second example, we agree that it is similar to Ephesians 4. As we stated there, the connotation of authority is not implied by ‘head.’ There is nothing else to say that we did not already say regarding Ephesians 4.

Regarding the first example, let’s refer back to the four options we gave above:

(1) Christ is in authority because he is the head.

(2) Christ is the head because he has authority.

(3) Christ is the head and he is in authority because God appointed him.

(4) Christ is, separately, the head and in authority, at the same time.

As before, Deep Strength can’t be dogmatic about which of these is correct, but he needs the first to be the correct one in order for his ideology to work. But, in fact, we know from the New Testament that the third or fourth option is more likely the correct one: for God gave Christ his authority and arguably made him head over the church (maybe Jesus did this himself?).

Regardless of which is true, all Deep Strength has is speculation. But remember that Deep Strength cited this passage in order to show that the ‘head’ implies authority. He clearly cannot establish this conclusion on this evidence alone, as there is too much ambiguity. He would have been better off not citing this passage at all, rather than falsely portray his speculation as if it were more definitive.

Its worth clarifying that being ‘head over authority’ does not imply that head means authority. That would beg-the-question that head means authority. Paul didn’t say “authority over all rule and authority,” he said “head over all rule and authority.” Whether or not these are equivalent is the very thing under debate, and so cannot be presumed.

Oof! That’s some cringe-worthy false equivocation there!

The word “cornerstone” is literally translated “head of the corner.” What made a cornerstone the head was because it was first.

The reason a cornerstone was a cornerstone is because it had to be cut precisely at 90 degrees, lest the foundations attached to it cause a divergence that results in an out-of-square building. It was the foundation in the sense that it was the most important, not because the other stones were built on top of it. Indeed, once a house was completed, the cornerstone looked just like any other stone. The cornerstone didn’t stand out for its appearance or inherent differences from the other stones. It’s importance was in being first, and consequently its cut was most important.

The sense of the word ‘head’ here is clearly in its firstness or greatest import, not its authoritativeness. This firstness carries the sense of preeminence, of status rather than authority.

Remember above when I wrote that that ‘head’ was associated with death? I used that example to highlight that tying words together arbitrarily is not good scholarship. There is another word that is associated with Jesus being the ‘head.’ Jesus is repeatedly called the firstborn in the New Testament. Indeed, in Colossians 1 (quoted above in the context of ‘head’) he is called the “firstborn of all creation”, “firstborn from the dead,” and has “first place in everything.” Christ is called the head because he is first.

Recall too how in 1 Corinthians 11, Deep Strength notes that Paul harkens back to the order of creation (in v8-9), regarding men and women, concluding that Paul was concerned with authority. But Paul is not talking about authority, he is talking about order: who came first. Indeed, when Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2 he emphasized that Adam was formed first.

The cornerstone—head stone—is important is because it is first. It sets the literal framing for the building that follows.

It is completely unnecessary to assign the sense of authority to ‘head’ when firstness (and its near synonyms) adequately explains it. This lack of necessity, combined with the historical fact that the meaning of the Greek word connoting authority is medieval, is why each and every time we have examined Deep Strength’s analysis, we have found it to be speculative. Calling it speculation is a more polite way of calling it eisegesis.

This is the same conclusion I made when I did my review of these verses. The vast majority of references to kephalē refer to a literal head. This is also true, by the way, of the Old Testament’s use of the word ‘head’ in Hebrew, even though that word can connote authority.

When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for ‘head’ was only rarely translated as ‘head’ in Greek when the source passage was clearly about authority. The majority of the time a different Greek word was chosen. So rare is the translation of the Hebrew ‘head’—meaning ‘leader’ or ‘authority’—into the Greek kephale (at most, arguably, 4-6%) that it indicates that this understanding of kephale must have been mostly (or even completely) unknown in the Greek-speaking world.

Let’s pause to emphasize this. In 95% of the instances of the Hebrew word for ‘head’ where it means ‘leader’ or ‘authority’, the Hebrew-to-Greek translator chose not to use the word that is supposed to be—according to Grudem and others—more-or-less semantically identical. Should we believe that translators, faced with a word in the target language that had an exactly equivalent definition to the source word and chose not to use that word in their translation? This, to put it mildly, defies reason.

This makes Grudem’s citation of Septuagint lexicons in favor of kephale as authority—and Deep Strength’s concurrence—especially ironic. It’s actually a good example of why it is an error to treat a lexicon’s ‘definitions’ as prescriptive, rather than merely descriptive. It is another example of Grudem mistaking correlation for causation.

Deep Strength’s conclusion is essentially just speculation. I’m not even willing to grant that its use in the New Testament implies authority even in its appearance. Without importing the English meaning of the word back into the Greek text, there is little-to-no reason anyone would make Deep Strength’s conclusion. It’s not even there in appearance, let alone in actual fact.

In the late 4th-century, portions of the Greek-speaking word began to selectively accept the connotation of authority alongside the other previous meanings. John Chrysostom is one example of a native speaker who balked at this change. But by the medieval period, the forces of language development (see: “Changing Language“) were enough to retcon scripture to turn ‘head’ into ‘headship’ (to use the English parlance). Without this retconning being applied, there wouldn’t even be the appearance of authority, just as to this day there is no appearance of connoted authority in the words for ‘dead’ and ‘death’ simply because Paul used those words in passages about authority.

Deep Strength is correct that mutual submission and headship are mutually exclusive, but he is incorrect about which one is original and which one is anachronistic. I can, and have, cited various historical proofs showing that the historical meaning of ‘head’ did not connote authority. I can, and have, demonstrated how this development happened over time.

I can, and have, cited the complete sentence in Ephesians 5 to show that mutual submission was Paul’s explicit topic. I have never been obligated to cite sentence fragments, nor to add to scripture various words, punctuation, paragraph breaks, or section breaks in order to explain this. So when I look at the sentence in Ephesians 5…

…I see mutual submission described as a general principle alongside a specific example. When I see the sentence fragment…

…I don’t see authority or anything else, because the resulting ‘sentence’ is nonsensical. Yes, I could go deeper into the weeds of grammatical analysis, word history, and language study in order to develop a refined understanding, but the point is that Deep Strength’s view is nonsensical unless he does that. My conclusion requires no slicing-and-dicing of the sentence, nor does it require any acrobatics beyond basic reading comprehension.

I can, and have, made many arguments—for mutual submission and against headship—that do not depend heavily on dogmatically embracing specific speculative options to the exclusion of other possibilities.

I have never insisted that others must agree with me or emulate what I teach regarding marital ‘submission’ and marital authority. Indeed, this is a repeated source of frustration for others:

My axe to grind is searching for and sharing truth, not proselytizing. It’s up to each man to decide and choose for himself what he will believe. For this I have repeatedly been called a feminist, and worse. But, what activist feminist has ever refused to proselytize, given the opportunity? Indeed, those who criticize me are the ones who seem most interested in proselytizing the wayward.

Consequently, I have no problem with Deep Strength’s speculation. He’s entitled to his views. Despite all the evidence I’ve presented and the lack of evidence that he’s brought to the table, he could nevertheless be correct. That is not my issue. What I have a problem with is his portrayal of scripture as something other—more—than what it is. These passages he cites do not establish what he wishes they would show.