Hi John,
Thanks for posting the above biblical summary. It resembles, in many respects, my article called "What is Marriage?" which can be found at my website (
www.thenarrowpath.com, at the "topical articles" link). I certainly agree with most of what you have written, even the parts for which there was no scripture cited.
I hope I may be able to be of service to you in correcting one mistake, which is commonly made, and which you included in your summary. It is a common claim of modern "evangelical feminists" (as they call themselves) that the word "head" (Gr. kephale) does not carry the idea of authority, but is rather a word meaning "source" (as in the "head" or "source" of a river). It is amazing how widely this misconception has been circulated by the feminist literature (although it has been long-since disproven), and how uncritically it has been accepted (without any lexical support) by those desperately wishing to eliminate the biblical doctrine of the husband's headship (leadership; authority) in the marriage.
I have read the feminists' books and know their arguments intimately. Fortunately, that is not all I have read. I could tell, even from the scripture's use of kephale, that the primary meaning could never be "source", but when I looked into the lexical evidence (the use of "kephale" in all Greek literature of the New Testament period) it clearly confirmed what a common sense reading of the biblical text would have suggested. I will share with you what that evidence is.
First, the basics. The word "kephale", like our word "head," has, as its principal meaning, a literal head--that is, of a human or an animal. Secondarily, as in all languages, the same word is often used metaphorically, as in the "head" of an army, or of a nation, or of a corporation (suggesting leader or authority). The Bible teaches that "The head of every man is Christ; the head of the woman [wife] is the man [husband]; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor.11:3). It also says, "For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church"(Eph.5:23).
In English, the word "head" may even be used metaphorically for a "river head", or the spring at the source of a river. However, kephale, so far as can be ascertained by lexical evidence, does not carry this meaning in the Greek of the New Testament period.
This last statement is vehemently denied by the evangelical feminists. They say that the scriptures are not affirming the authority of the husband over the wife (nor, apparently, the authority of Christ over the church!), but rather that Paul is only reminding us that Christ is the "source" of the church, and the husband is the "source" of the wife, since "woman was taken out of man"--without any suggestion of authority or submission. But their protests are to no avail. They are defeated on the battlefield of lexical Greek studies, as well as obvious scriptural usage.
As for the former, I highly recommend (only to those who really care about the truth of the matter) the appendix about "The Meaning of Kephale" in the book "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. In this appendix, Wayne Grudem interacts with the feminist authors on this point, and presents the results of his extensive research on the usage of "kephale" in the Greek language over a period beginning four-hundred years before the time of the New Testament, and ending four-hundred years after. Thus he surveys every instance of the word kephale appearing in all extant Greek literature spanning eight-hundred years, with the New Testament being written right in the middle of that period.
The bottom line: In well over 4000 instances of the use of kephale, the most common usage was of a literal head of man or animal (not surprisingly); then there were the metaphorical uses, the most common of which was of a commander, ruler or leader of a group of people (obviously suggesting authority, not "source"). I believe he found only two instances of kephale referring to the end of a river. However, even here the meaning was not "source," but rather the word was used for BOTH ENDS of the river--the spring and the mouth! Thus he found no evidence whatsoever of the meaning of kephale being "source."
In addition, he pointed out that none of the Greek lexicons that specialize in the koine Greek of the New Testament even list "source" as one of the possible meanings of kephale. In other words, there is nothing, apart from the imaginations and wishful thinking of the evangelical feminists, to support any idea of kephale ("head") meaning "source" in the New Testament documents.
But we could have discovered that from the New Testament usage alone. Even if there were evidence that "source" was one possible implication of kephale, in certain instances, we could easily see (unless we did not wish to) that it certainly does not have this meaning in the Pauline usage.
While some of the occurrances in Paul might be thought to be ambiguous, there are at least a couple of passages where Paul's use of kephale is unmistakable (I suppose nothing is really "unmistakable" to those committed to being mistaken).
In Ephesians 1:20-22, Paul writes: "which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand [a position of authority] in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named [all affirmations of supreme authority]...and He put all things under His feet [suggesting subordination to authority], AND GAVE HIM TO BE HEAD [kephale] OVER ALL THINGS to the church..."
There can be no avoiding the associations of kephale here with the concept of authority, and the suggestion that it could mean "source" here is artificial, arbitrary and counterintuitive, given the context.
Also, in Ephesians 5:22-23, Paul writes: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord, for the husband is head [kephale] of the wife..."
Here, the headship of the husband is given as the reason for the wife's submission. It is plain that the meaning of "source" would be absurd here. The husband is not the "source" of his wife--her parents are.
Also, the fact that someone is another person's "source" is not a logical argument for unilateral submission of one to the other. My grandfather is my source (certainly more directly than he is the source of his own wife!), but this does not translate into an obligation of me submitting to him. In fact, if I were a government official, and my grandfather were a private citizen, there is a sense in which he would, in certain circumstances, have to submit to me. It makes no sense to say, "Wives, submit to your husbands, because they are your source," but it makes perfectly reasonable sense to say, "Submit to your husband, because he is your leader/authority."
If I liked the evangelical feminists better than I do, I might find it painful to watch them writhe and squirm and desperately fabricate silly arguments in the face of the hard data that proves them wrong--but as it is, I only find it amusing.
I hope you may count yourself blessed, and not cursed, by having been corrected on this point. You needn't ever make that mistake again. I personally love to be disabused of my wrong ideas. I hate making mistakes, especially in my misrepresenting the teaching of the Word of God!
And here is one other thing. You said that "Male supremacy is the curse." I am curious about the philosophy or motivation that informs such a statement. First, because it is manifestly unscriptural; and second, because it is not at all obvious why anyone should believe this. Frankly, it sounds (coming from a male) like an embarrassed apology for being a male. Many men have been made to be ashamed of their gender, because we have been told for so long that we have been the oppressors of women throughout history. I, for one, have never oppressed any man, woman or child, and have not the slightest guilt, nor pride, about being a male. Men are about as good and about as bad as women. As you mentioned, in citing Galatians 3:28, there is no difference between male and female, where the need of salvation by grace is concerned. We can stop making gratuitous, self-depreciating remarks about our gender any time now.
Let us think clearly about this matter of "Male supremacy" being "the curse." Everyone that I know is under the dominion (supremacy) of someone, even if that someone is one's self. Is the supremacy of myself really less of a curse than is the supremacy of a God-appointed leader over me? Just imagine how this attitude would play out in an army sent to battle, where each man is under the "supremacy" of a ranking officer, and someone insisted that things would be far more pleasant if every man were simply to be answerable to himself alone!
If I am incompetent (just by way of illustration) as a brick-layer, but I am employed by a journeyman, who places me under the tutelage of an obnoxious, but competent trainer, is it more of a curse for me to be under this man's authority, or would it be best to be left to myself to make my own mistakes? If I insist on the latter, I should start my own business, so that I do not make my mistakes at another's expense! It is not obvious why my being under the authority of another would be less desirable than being under the authority of myself, unless I am an incorrigible control-freak.
Now lets subtract the element of competence and say that I am employed as a hamburger-flipper at Burger King. I am told that I am to answer to the shift manager, who might not be very pleasant, nor more competent than myself. Should I argue that the owner of the establishment has cursed me by hiring me to a position where I must answer to one who is no more intelligent than myself? Would not such a complaint be met with the response, "I thought you applied for this job. If you want to be your own boss, start your own business!"?
Are the players on a football team under a curse because they must submit to the decisions of the team captain or the coach? I doubt that they feel this way. I imagine they are happy just to be able to play on the team.
As I said in my first post (above), marriage is an institution that is entered voluntarily. If a woman (or man) doesn't like the authority structure chosen by the Coach, let him/her play alone--but don't let him/her complain that the Coach of this team has established a hierarchy and that each participant is assigned a well-defined role for the good of the whole team. You may participate or not participate in the game, but you must not decide to participate and then attempt to change the rules, reorganize, redefine, and overthrow the designs of the Captain, or the Coach, who has magnanimously invited you to play in His game.
