Lack of space prohibited detailed discussion of a key hermeneutical point in the essay Women in Holy Orders, written by myself and Bishop and Trinity School for Ministry Professor Grant Le Marquand: biblical metaphors must be interpreted through their narrative contexts, not by readings imposed from external references. I make this point at length in my book Icons of Christ, citing New Testament scholar Richard Hays, among others.¹ We know what it means for God to be Father not from Hebrew or Greek examples of fatherhood outside the New Testament, but from how Jesus Christ redefines what it means to be Father in the light of his own relationship as the Son to the God of Israel who is his eternal Father. We know what it means for Jesus Christ to be “head” of the church, or for men to be “head” in relation to women, from the New Testament context in which the term kephalē (“head”) actually occurs as a metaphor, not from six LXX translations of a handful of Old Testament passages, or from examples in pagan culture from outside the New Testament. The proper exegetical approach is inductive and a posteriori, allowing one’s understanding to be challenged and transformed by following the narrative logic of the actual biblical texts. Biblical symbols, metaphors, and vocabulary are interpreted through a careful reading of the actual texts in order to discover how the metaphors, symbols, and vocabulary actually function in the texts.

In contrast to the inductive approach mentioned above, throughout the Response to our essay from the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word, the writers use a rationalist and deductive hermeneutic to decide that Paul’s use of the metaphor “head” necessarily means “authority.” The approach of the Response is a priori and deductive. That is, the texts are interpreted through the lens of concepts and ideas first derived from outside the text. In a previous essay, I noted that the terms “head,” “authority,” and “roles” are determining vocabulary throughout the Response. “Authority” is the dominating notion. Having decided that authority is the crucial issue, the writers of the Response conclude that when Paul used the word “head” to describe the relationship between men and women, the metaphor of “head” necessarily means “authority.”This can be shown in the following ways:

1) The Responders consistently appeal to sources outside of Paul’s own letters in order to decide what Paul must have meant.

Household Codes

In our original essay, we had mentioned the “household codes” of antiquity, and had stated that “In Ephesians 5:1-6:9, Paul challenges traditional pagan and Jewish ‘household codes’ which typically addressed male householders in their duties to exercise authority over their subordinates (wives, children and slaves), in the light of cruciform spirituality.”

This point concerning the way in which Paul modified and challenged ancient household codes is a standard observation in contemporary Pauline exegesis, recognized by numerous scholars. We included two entire paragraphs in which we explained how Paul modified these codes.

The Responders failed to acknowledge the significance of this discussion at all, but simply took the opposite approach: “It should be noted once more that Paul’s requirements for presbyters/overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, assume the continuation of these social arrangements in the context of the Christian Church. The presbyter is to manage his household in such a way that his children are not rebellious.”

In Women in Holy Orders (and also in my book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination Baylor University Press, 2020), we had challenged this reading of 1 Timothy and Titus:“It is also significant that these requirements for overseers (bishops), elders (presbyters), and deacons in the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy 3:1-12; Titus 1:5-9) are moral requirements, not job descriptions. It cannot be coincidental that identical language is used to describe women throughout the pastoral epistles” (p. 10). If identical language is used throughout the pastoral epistles to describe women as is used to describe the office-holders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons (and it is!), then these descriptions cannot be an endorsement of a male hierarchy of men over women since identical language is used throughout to describe both the office holders and women!

Note also that the Responders conflate the issue of male/female hierarchy and parent/child hierarchy. No one in this discussion is suggesting that parents should not exercise authority over children. Given that children lack intellectual and emotional maturity, there are good reasons for this. But adult wives and women are not children! To conflate the authority of parents over children and the authority of men over women is necessarily to infantalize women!

The key point is that Paul challenged the pagan household codes of antiquity by transforming them in the light of Christ’s example. The Responders claim instead that Paul rather endorsed these (pagan!) household codes. They make their point not by a careful comparison between ancient household codes and what Paul actually wrote, but simply note that in the pastoral epistles, Paul commands parents to exercise authority over children! Whether parents have authority over children is irrelevant to the issue of whether husbands have the kind of authority over wives that complementarians claim.

Appeal to Pagan Examples

As noted in the previous essay, the Responders rely heavily on complementarian Wayne Grudem, who claims that kephalē (“head”) means “authority” based on its use in pagan and Jewish sources outside Paul’s own writings. The Responders state that “the textual context of [Paul’s] usage must [not] be isolated from the way the word might have been used in common parlance. If, in other words, κεφαλή included a notion of authority or ‘authority figure’ within its range of meaning, that is relevant and applicable date when attempting to interpret Paul’s usage.” They also state: “Grudem’s point was that the word was used commonly, before, during, and after Paul’s day, to refer to hierarchy and authority, not origin.”

As we argued in Women in Holy Orders, and as I argued in detail in my previous essay, the evidence makes clear that Greek kephalē did not carry a “notion of authority” in “common parlance” at the time when Paul wrote. Contrary to Grudem, the word was not “used commonly” to refer to “hierarchy” and “authority.” Aside from this misinterpretation of the evidence, the crucial point is that the authors of the Response are turning to pagan sources from outside Paul’s own texts to determine ahead of time what Paul must have meant when he used the word rather than attending to the narrative context of Paul’s own use.

Military Examples

In our original essay, we had challenged this a priori tendency to impose a meaning on Paul’s texts when we pointed out that “Paul’s use of the metaphor ‘head’ to describe the relationship between men and women is unique,” and that, accordingly, “the only way to understand what Paul means by ‘headship’ in marriage is to examine the context in which he himself uses the metaphor.” We then contrasted Paul’s use to the examples put forward by Grudem, noting that Grudem’s examples are military or political examples of “one to many” leadership, concluding: “Paul certainly did not understand the relationship between husband and wife to be like that between a single military commander and numerous soldiers or a single ruler and numerous followers.”

The Responders claim that this observation is “irrelevant even if it were true.” (Why this last bit? Of course it is true! Paul refers to husbands who have one wife. Grudem’s examples are military not marital examples.) The following couple of sentences again make clear that the Responders are imposing onto Paul’s meaning an a priori notion of authority derived from outside the biblical text: “[M]artial/political themes are not absent in the relationship between Christ and his Church. Christ is our mighty warrior King and we submit to him as our head in the military sense that he destroys our enemies and rescues us from hell.” Since, they claim, Paul “explicitly commands” wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, “it is unreasonable to assume from the outset that he would not use κεφαλή in a similar way for marriage. The ‘one to many’ parallel, moreover, fits perfectly. The wife is one person, it is true, but typologically she represents the Church, the many who are one in Christ.” Note again that the hermeneutical clue is provided not from a careful reading of what Paul actually wrote about the relationships between husbands and wives, but from an understanding derived from pagan usages of the word kephalē supplied by Grudem. Rather than acknowledging that Paul’s use is indeed different from these non-biblical examples, they double down to fit Paul’s meaning within the required parameters. In doing so, the writers mix metaphors. It is correct that the New Testament uses military imagery to describe Christ as the one who defeats the enemies of sin and death. (Ironically, as writers like Irenaeus have pointed out, the way in which Christ defeats his enemies is not through the use of force or violence, but through the non-violent means of undergoing death himself on the cross! So even this analogy does not fit the bill!) At the same time, however, it is important to note that when the NT uses military imagery to refer to Christ, it does so to speak of Christ defeating the enemies of sin and death.

Paul does not use this military imagery to describe the relationship between husbands and wives because wives are neither Christ’s nor their husband’s enemies who need to be defeated in the way that Christ defeats sin and death! Note that this is the way in which the Response itself uses this military language: “Christ destroys our enemies and rescues us from hell” (my emphasis). The military analogy would only work in this context if wives are the enemies whom husbands must destroy! The claim that the “one to many” parallel “fits perfectly” actually destroys the logic of Paul’s argument. The parallel between Christ and the church and the husband and wife is based on the assumption that as Christ is One and the husband is one, so there is One church and the husband has a single wife. The “one to many” parallel would only work if Paul were advocating that Christ was the “head” of many churches, or that husbands had many wives (polygamy). Certainly the church is made up of many members, but the members form One body, as there is only One Bride of Christ! Any one-to-many parallel would undermine the unity between the One Christ and his One Church!

2) This leads to the next crucial issue. Throughout the Response, the authors regularly conflate the issue of Christ’s authority as God incarnate and Redeemer of sinful humanity with the authority husbands exercise over wives without regard to the actual language Paul uses or the context in which he uses it.

For example, in response to our paragraph on the meaning of Christ’s “headship” as “giving life to the body, and as a source of nourishment,” they respond:

In these texts, Christ and his Church are depicted as One, just as the human body is one. The “head” in this context is the source of life, nurture, union, and growth. What is odd, however, is that for Drs. LeMarquand and Witt, as opposed to Paul who commands wives to submit to husbands just as the Church submits to Christ, such notions are antithetical to hierarchy and subordination.

And later:

There is no reason to think that somehow in his relationship to the Church the word head ceases to carry authority or that the Church is not a body over which he exercises authority. All of Paul’s writings and the entirety of the New Testament militate against that. To him is given dominion and authority and power over everything. Is he also the source of life and nourishment for his Bride? Yes. But, the two, life giver and king/authority figure, are not at odds with one another. They are perfectly harmonious.

There are certainly similarities between Christ and the church as there are similarities between husbands and wives. If there were not, Paul’s analogy between Christ and the church and marriage would not work. However, there are also crucial differences. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, the Savior and Redeemer of the Church, and its exalted Lord. Christ is the Creator, while both husbands and wives are creatures. Husbands and wives are equally human, but neither husbands or wives are divine. While Christ is sinless, husbands and wives are equally redeemed sinners, to both of whom the exalted Christ is Lord. Husbands and wives owe unconditional obedience to Christ because he is the exalted divine Lord of the church, but neither husbands or wives owe unconditional obedience to one another. In Ephesians 5, Paul compares husbands to Christ in that the husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:16). However, Paul does not write that husbands are to play the role of divine Lord in relationship to their wives; nor does Paul write that husbands are the Redeemers of their wives. There are similarities between Christ and husbands, but the differences are actually greater than the similarities.

To the contrary, the Response of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word throughout makes the mistake of conflating the authority and tasks that Jesus Christ exercises as the exalted Lord and Redeemer of the church, and the tasks that husbands play in relation to their wives. Note that in both the above quotations, the Response makes the claim that Christ has authority over his church – which no one denies – and then conclude from this that the parallel between husbands and wives must be identical in this regard. The authors make a rhetorical argument along the following lines:

Christ has authority over the church.
Paul makes a comparison between Christ and the church and husbands and wives.
Therefore, husbands must have authority over wives in the same way as Christ has authority over the church.

This is perhaps the most egregious error of the Response. Husbands are indeed like Christ in loving their wives; however, husbands are not like Christ in redeeming their wives from sin; nor does Paul say that husbands are like Christ in ruling over their wives. Noting not only the similarities, but also the differences in the analogy between Christ and the church and husbands and wives is crucial for interpreting Paul’s language correctly.

We had addressed the issue of “submission” in our essay, and I will do so more at length in a later essay. The Response misses a crucial difference between the mutual submission that Paul asks of husbands and wives, and the unilateral submission between Christ and the church. In addressing Paul’s language of submission in Ephesians 5, Pope John Paul II notes this crucial difference between husbands and Christ: “However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.”²

In an important essay written by Richard Cervin (referred to in the Response, but read quite selectively), Cervin writes: “Now it is true that Christ is our leader and ruler and that he does have authority over the Church, and it is also true that he is the source and provider of our salvation, our lives, our very being in as much as he is the agent of creation – all of this is readily derived from Christology. The debate really revolves around the issue of the kephalē metaphor: to what extent are these subsidiary issues (authority, source, provider, prominence, etc.) bound to the meaning of kephalē?”³

Similarly, Philip Payne writes: “Christ has authority over the church, but that is not Paul’s point in any of his depictions of Christ as ‘head’ of the church. . . . [Paul] never says the husband has authority over his wife, and certainly not that the husband has authority corresponding to the authority of Christ over the church. That would deify husbands!”⁴

Not only similarities, but also differences between Christ and the church and husbands and wives are thus crucial to understanding how Paul uses the metaphor of “head” in the relationships between Christ and the church and husbands and wives in Ephesians 5. It is important not to conflate the differences. To emphasize again what we wrote in Women in Holy Orders, “Paul’s use of the metaphor ‘head’ to describe the relationship between men and women is unique. Paul is the first example we know of to make a comparison between husband and wife and Christ and the church. Accordingly, the only way to understand what Paul means by ‘headship’ in marriage is to examine the context in which he himself uses the metaphor.” This means a close reading of what Paul actually wrote. It does not mean that we turn to sources outside Paul (such as Grudem’s appeal to pagan or Jewish sources outside Paul – unsuccessful, I have argued), and then impose that understanding on Paul’s texts. Nor does it mean that we take what Paul says about the relationship between Christ and the church elsewhere, and then impose that aspect of Christ’s relationship to the church to the relationship between husbands and wives unless Paul makes that connection himself.

Toward an Inductive Reading

What then does an inductive reading of Paul’s actual texts tell us about his use of the metaphor kephalē (“head”) as a metaphorical parallel between Christ and the church, husbands and wives, and men and women?

First, the metaphor does not mean “authority over.” Despite the Responders’ claim that “authority” would have been common parlance in Paul’s time, the opposite is actually the case, as I argued in my previous essay. Again to cite Philip Payne:

[B]oth secular Greek dictionaries and the standard Greek translation of the Scriptures used by Paul and the churches give strong evidence that “leader” was not a natural Greek meaning for “head”; Only if Paul clearly explained that by “head” he meant “leader” would his readers be likely to recognize that meaning. Consequently, we should be wary lest we read the English meaning “leader” into Paul’s use of head. Indeed, we should expect a different meaning than “leader” when Paul uses “head” as a metaphor.⁵

In line with this, if Paul had intended to endorse the surrounding patriarchal culture’s understanding of a hierarchical relationship between men and women, he could have done so, but he did not. Paul does not use words like “authority” (exousia) or “Lord” (kurios) to describe the husband’s relation to his wife. Paul does not tell the leader of the household (the pater familias) to rule over his subordinates or to enforce his authority as do the “household codes.” Paul does not tell wives to obey their husbands, but to respect them (Eph. 5:33).

Given that Paul’s use of “head” (kephalē) as a metaphor to describe the relationship between men and women is unique, how does Paul’s own context provide indications of what he means by the metaphor?

First, in five of the seven passages where Paul uses the metaphor, the word sōma (“body”) is present (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16; 5:21-24; Col. 1:17-18; 2:18-19). The two exceptions are 1 Cor. 11:3-5 and Col. 2:9-10. The primary meaning of the metaphor in the prison epistles (Ephesians and Colossians) thus concerns a head-body comparison.

Scholars have offered primarily three non-hierarchical interpretations of Paul’s meaning.

Source or origin: This is a reading that often appeals to passages outside the NT. For example, Payne appeals to Galen, Herodotus, and Philoponus, who refer to the “head” of a river, that is, its source. Philo states that Esau is the “head,” i.e., “progenitor” of his clan. “Head” cannot mean “authority” here because Esau was long dead when Philo wrote. Philo describes the Ten Commandments as the “heads,” the “sources” (archai) of all ordinances. The Apocalypse of Moses states that lust is the “head” of every sin, that is, the “source.” The Orphic Fragment describes Zeus as “the head,” the “middle, and from Zeus “all things exist.” As will be seen below, Paul uses “head” as equivalent to archē.⁶ Against the meaning of “source,” Cervin suggests that in several of these passages, “head” means “beginning” rather than “source,” but I am not convinced that this is a significant difference since a “source” is a kind of “beginning.”⁷

Prominent or preeminent: Several scholars have suggested that kephalē means “prominent” or “preeminent” in the sense of “projecting upward,” “notable,” “conspicuous,” “widely known.” Grudem has claimed that “authority” is implicit in “preeminence,” and the Responders pick up on this.⁸ However, Cervin rejoins correctly: “Contrary to Grudem, it is not the case that notions of preeminence and authority are intrinsically linked together.”⁹

Height: Cervin takes the notion of “head” in relation to “body” literally to mean “topmost”: “I take the Greeks’ metaphorical use of kephalē to have a rather physical and vertical orientation. Just as the head is the topmost part of humans’ and animals’ physiology . . . so the head is the most prominent part of our bodies. . . . [I]f the vertical orientation is turned on its side, i.e., horizontally, the notion of kephalē can be applied to the ends of things, since the head is at one end of a body which is lying down.”¹⁰

I would suggest that the above three definitions are not inherently in contradiction to one another. Depending on context, “head” could have connotations of “beginning,” “source,” “prominent,” or “height.” The one weakness of the three suggestions is that in a manner similar to Grudem, they rely heavily on how kephalē is used in sources outside Paul’s own writings to claim that kephalē means “source,” “preeminent,” or “height” rather than “authority.” If Paul’s use is unique, his meaning can be found only from how he himself uses the term. Looking more specifically to Paul’s own usage, Payne lays down three “standard principles of interpretation” to provide “objective” grounds to determine Paul’s meaning of “head” in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11.¹¹

First, how did the author define the meaning of a word in this particular context? Authors do this by adding parallel phrases or substitution to explain intended meaning. This is known as apposition.

Second, is there anything in the literary context in addition to the definition that explains what the word means or that might conflict with proposed meanings?

Third, how does the author use the word elsewhere, especially in similar contexts?

Drawing on both Payne and Cervin, I will examine six of the seven passages to discern Paul’s meaning in Ephesians 5. (A discussion of 1 Corinthians 11 will appear in a later essay.)

Colossians 1:17-18

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head (kephalē) of the body (sōma), the church. He is the beginning (archē), the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent (proteuōn).

Payne points out that Paul explains what he means by kephalē here by using “apposition.” Christ is the “head” of the body as its origin, the “source” (archē) of the body’s life.¹²

Cervin notes that there is a head-body metaphor, that “preiminence” is “relevant here,” and that Christ “occupies the topmost or prominent place with respect to the body.” Christ necessarily possesses authority, but crucial to the discussion is whether kephalē denotes authority “in and of itself.” It does not.¹³

I wouild suggest that the difference between Payne and Cervin is not fundamental. Christ can exercise preeminence (“he is before all things”), while also being the “source” or “beginning” of all things.

Ephesians 4:15-16

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head (kephalē), into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

Payne claims that context makes clear that “head” means “source” in this passage: “Christ is the ‘head . . . from whom . . . the body grows’ affirms that Christ is the source of the body’s growth. “From’ implies ‘source.’”¹⁴

Cervin agrees, stating that both “source” and “provider” may be applicable, based not, however, on the word kephalē itself, but from context: “The connotation of ‘source’ may be implied in the prepositional phrase ‘from whom’ (ex hou) and the overall tenor of the passage may speak of Christ as the provider of the body’s growth.”¹⁵

Colossians 2:18-19

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the head (kephalē), from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Payne points to this passage as an example of the third principle: how is the passage used elsewhere? “[T]he head from whom the whole body . . . grows” points to “source” as the meaning of the metaphor.¹⁶

Cervin notes that the passage “has a number of similarities” to Eph. 4:15-16, and “I think that the notion of source or source of life may be an implication derivable solely from the context.” The passage is a “head-body” metaphor: “The body, the Church is sustained by the head, Christ, and one risks one’s life in abandoning the head. The implication is that the Christian will not survive apart from Christ just as members of our human bodies will not survive if they are cut off from our bodies.”¹⁷

Colossians 2:9-10

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

This is one of only two Pauline passages that does not have a “head-body” metaphor. Note, however, that it is only a few verses before Col. 2:18-19, which clearly does. Payne suggests that “top” or “crown” fits the context.¹⁸

Cervin points to similarities with Eph. 1:20-23 (to be looked at below). He thinks that the primary notion is that of “prominence and preeminence.” The notion of authority “may be present, but so are prominence and preeminence.” The question, Cervin asks, is, “which, if, any, is primary?” In this context, “source” is “unlikely,” as this would make Christ the “source” of all rule and authority, “and that does not make much sense in this context.”¹⁹

Crucial to the present discussion is that there is no “head-body” comparison in this passage. If, as Cervin suggests, “authority” may be present, any notion of authority would come not from the metaphor of “head” itself, but from the context of Christ’s unique position in relationship to the rest of creation; Christ is the one in whom “the fullness of deity dwell bodily.” This would be a clear case difference between “head” as applied to Christ and “head” as applied husbands, so an example in which the metaphor would not work. Of no husband could it be said that, in him “the fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

I would suggest that the notion of “head” as “source” is not completely lacking, however. Paul makes a comparison between Christ, in whom “the fullness of deity dwells bodily,” and the church, which has “been filled” in Christ. So there is a notion of mutual indwelling; God’s full deity dwells in Christ’s body; the church (only a few verses later) is identified as Christ’s body, and dwells in Christ. In comparison with what follows in verses 18-19, where “source” is clearly implied, the notion of “head” as source is part of the general context of the passage.

Ephesians 5:23

For the man [anēr] is the head [kephalē] of the woman [gunaikos] as also Christ [is] head [kephalē] of the church, himself Savior of the body. (literal translation)

This is, of course, the key passage in the discussion, and the center of disagreement between complementarians and egalitarians. In light of Paul’s use of the metaphor elsewhere, and Payne’s three “standard principles of interpretation,” what would kephalē mean in this passage? Just as Paul defined “head” by means of “apposition” in Col. 1:18 – Christ is the head (kephalē) of the body, the church, who is the archē (origin, source) – Payne points out that Paul defines “head” in Ephesians 5:23 through apposition. In Eph. 5:23, Christ is “head” of the church as its “Savior.”²⁰

Payne points out that many translations conceal the apposition between Christ as “head” and Christ as “Savior” by inserting either “and” or “of which” following “head,” giving the misleading impression that “head” and “Savior” describe two different operations or implying that the second phrase is referring only to the church rather than explaining the meaning of the word “head.” Some change the word order, concealing the parallel structure and apposition. The use of apposition means that “Savior” defines the meaning of “head.”²¹

Paul explains the meaning of “Savior” in v. 25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” As “head” of the church, Christ is its Savior, giving himself up for the church. Paul makes clear exactly what he means by drawing the parallel between Christ as “head” of the church, and the husband as “head” of his wife. As Christ loves the church, the husband is to love his wife. The husband is to “nourish and cherish” his wife as he nourishes and cherishes his own body, just as Christ “nourishes” and “cherishes” the church. Payne argues that “head” is a natural metaphor for “source” here, since the head is the source through which the body receives nourishment. Christ is the source of life for the church, and, in the same manner, the husband should be the source of life for his wife, providing for her all that is essential for her to live.²²

Note that Paul defines “headship” here as a call for husbands to love, nourish, and give themselves to their wives to the point of death. Nowhere in the passage does Paul command husbands to exercise authority over their wives. In verse 21, Paul calls on all Christians to “submit to one another,” applied first to wives in verses 22-24, but then applied to husbands in verses 25-33. (In other words, the submission of wives to husbands is not one-sided, but simply an example of the mutual submission that all Christians owe one another.) Paul commands husbands to submit to their wives by loving them, giving themselves for them, nourishing them, and cherishing them. (More will be said about “mutual submission” in a later essay.) Payne concludes: “’Source’ makes good sense as the meaning of nine of Paul’s eleven metaphorical uses of kephalē, whereas not even one instance has been demonstrated to mean’authority’ over. All three principles [of interpretation] clearly support that ‘head’ in Ephesians 5:23 means’ savior’ in the sense of “source of love and nourishment.”²³ Cervin agrees with Payne and others that verse 21 is an “admonition to mutual submission, and this applies to husbands by implication.” In the passage, “authority” cannot be derived from the word kephalē itself, but only from the “overall context.”²⁴ However, again, the overall context is one of mutual submission.

Ephesians 1:20-23

[T]hat [God] worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule (archē) and authority (exousia) and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head (kephalē) over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

In Women in Holy Orders, we wrote a single sentence concerning this passage: “In the one passage in which Paul does associate Christ’s ‘headship’ with authority, he contrasts Christ’s relationship with his body, the church, with those over whom he exercises authority.”

The Responders pounced on this single sentence to claim “Drs. LeMarquand and Witt do acknowledge one passage in which Paul uses κεφαλή in the context of a hierarchical relationship.” What the writers miss however is that even in this short sentence we were contrasting the way in which Paul uses kephalē as a metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ and the church and husbands and wives, and the way he uses it “with those over whom he exercises authority.” Both Payne and Cervin suggest that Paul is using a metaphor of height here.²⁵ Cervin suggests that the primary meaning is “prominence” and “preeminence”: “Just as the head is above the physical body, so Christ is above everything in creation. Christ is also preeminent in the sense of being supreme. I fail to see how either of these notions [prominence and preeminence] could be denied in this passage, I likewise fail to see why authority must be considered the primary connotation.” He goes on to write: “On the other hand, the connotation of source does not fit the context at all. It makes no sense to say that Christ is the ‘source over’ (hyper) all things in the Church.”²⁶

While I agree with Cervin that the notion of height is certainly present, Paul uses the metaphor of “head” and “body” in two different ways to contrast Christ’s relationship to his enemies with his relationship to the church. Paul does use the words “rule” (archē) and “authority” (exousia), but he uses them to describe Christ’s relationship to his enemies, those “under his feet.” However, the notion of “source” is clearly present as well, in that Paul uses the “head/body” metaphor to describe Christ’s relationship to the church, “which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

The “head” metaphor thus functions in two different ways in the passage. Central to the passage is that Paul uses the words “rule” and “authority” in a contrast between the enemies who are “under Christ’s feet,” and Christ’s “body,” whom he is described not as exercising “rule over,” but as “filling all in all,” a metaphor that fits in with what we have seen elsewhere (Eph. 4: 15-16).

In conclusion, the point is not that Christ does not exercise authority over the church, or that there are no authorities in the church or society, or that there are no authorities in the family, such as parents over children. The point is that when Paul uses the word “head” (kephalē) as part of a “head/body” metaphor, authority is not what he is talking about. For Paul, kephalē refers not to “authority,” but to Christ’s love and nourishment of the church. In the parallel Paul draws between Christ and the church and husband and wife in Eph. 5:23, the metaphor functions the same way. Paul does not use the word kephalē in the context of marriage to refer to an “authority over” that a husband exercises in relationship to his wife, but to the husband’s love for and nourishment of his wife, in the same way that Christ loves and nourishes the church. In the one instance where Paul uses kephalē in a head/body metaphor to describe authority, those whom over Christ exercises authority are not part of his body, but his enemies, who are under his feet!