Simple Textual Analysis and Criticism of 1 Corinthians 11: 3 [1-16]

First, let us note the following. Text and context form the basis of an accurate integrity of scriptural interpretation. Text without context is pretext, meaning, justification without reason.

Second, Paul was a meticulous writer. He had both Jewish and Roman citizenship and was raised under the prominent Jewish rabbi and scholar Gamaliel (Acts 22: 1-3, 27). Paul was called by Jesus Christ in a broad day encounter (Acts 9). He received training and guidelines from Ananias (Acts 9: 10-19;22: 12-16). He was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:9). With Paul, we are dealing with more than an exceptional apostle. He was a scholar trained in both Jewish and Greek literature.

The first epistle to the Corinthians was a response to various internal issues reported to the apostle (1 Cor. 1: 10-17). In Chapter 11 Paul talks about propriety in worship. Our text to analyze is 1 Corinthians 11: 3:

“But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man [andros], and the man [aner] is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

The context of headship in the Corinthians correspondence differs widely with the context of man’s “authority” in the epistle of Timothy. Specifically in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul meticulously used the Greek terms “andros”, “aner “, and “gunē”. Whereas “andros” and “aner” often overlap to mean either an adult man or husband, the distinction in Corinthians 11 is made obvious. Paul uses “andros” for “all men” as in the male gender. And “aner” plus “gunē” becomes “the husband” and “wife”. Many scholars have failed to translate the text in this manner.

Since all the “aner” are in the nominative, it appears the Apostle wants to say “the husband”, whiles “andros” appears as “man” as in the general sense. The nominative is like the “subject” in English grammar which mostly comes with the definate article “the”. To know the subject in a sentence, just ask “Who?” and “what?”. Example: “Kofi is going to school.” Who is going to School? Kofi. Kofi is therefore the subject. Paul will not use the two words in a single sentence without purpose. In places where Paul uses “andros” plus “gunē”, the meaning becomes “a man [husband] and woman [wife]” depending on the context as in 1 Tim. 3:2, Eph. 5:22-33. The moment the words are put in the nominative, the meaning becomes specific with a direct object. Deeper analysis will proof thus.

From this background, it is easier to identify all the nominative in the text. Let’s ask ourselves the “who” and “what” questions:

1. Who is the head of Christ? ANS: God
2. Who is the head of every man? ANS: Christ
3. Who is the head of the woman? ANS: The husband
4. What is God to Christ? ANS: Head
5. What is Christ to the husband? ANS: Head
6. What is the husband to the woman? ANS: Head

Now it’s easier to identify all the subjects who are entitled with “headship”:

GOD-CHRIST- THE HUSBAND

We keep asking questions. If scripture is inspired, it means it is inspired to inspire the reader. But if one does not understand the text, how can the person experience inspiration? Therefore, we ask more questions to understand the text. How did God become the head of Christ? Is there a hierarchy in the Trium deity? Or is there subordination where God is superior to Christ?

First, let’s understand that Christ gets his headship over the man from God (Col. 1: 15-20), whiles the husband gets his headship over the wife from Christ. A disconnection in the chain is a loss of headship. For example, if Christ is disconnected from God, He loses His headship authority. So if a husband disconnects from Christ, he loses his headship, the same way a husband loses headship over a woman after divorce [in the cultural sense]. This is the reason why men are advised to love their wives just as Christ loved the church [Eph. 5:25]. He is judged in the persona of Christ.

Second, another clue to help us understand the text is the concept of filiation or relational bonding. Christ is the Son and God is the Father. Whether this role is a title or function, the image we get is a father’s authority over the son. The same way Christ rules over all men who have accepted Him as their personal savior. NOTE: Not all men have Christ as their head. This must be understood from a confessional point of view [REF.: John 1, 12-13]. So not all men have headship over women except a man in a conjugal bond with a woman (Rom. 7: 2; 1 Cor. 7: 39). There is no universality in the concept of the headship. Not explicit!

Third, some scholars have interpreted “kephalē” (head) as source, and others as superiority/supremacy. The same way Christ came from the Father as Son, the same way the woman was taken from the man. This interpretation poses many problems regarding the nature of Christ. Was Christ taken out of God? Or was Christ created? The interpretation of the metaphorical construction of “kephalē” must be seen from a relational bonding and theological perspective other than ontologies, else we’ll begin step into the bounds of heresy.

The text should be read: “The head of every man [andros] is Christ, and the head of the wife is the husband [aner]”. Also in verses 8 and 9. Headship in this context is only limited in the marriage bond. However, a man without Christ has no head. Also, a man who is unmarried has only Christ as his head. He has no headship over every woman. It is inappropriate and even defies social norms to walk into someone’s house and claim headship over the person’s wife.

Paul’s argument must be understood from a theological point of view other than biological ontologies. The figure of Adam and Eve are employed as “husband and wife” to emphasize the point that the woman came from the man, and for the man. This ontology, which is more social, is broken when Paul wrote:

“However, IN THE LORD, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God” (1 Cor. 11: 11-12 KJV) [Emphasis are mine].

Paul’s transitional phrase “In the Lord” means he’s already spoken of things which are ethically sound but not necessarily theological or doctrinal. In the Lord, things are different! In the Lord, all things are of God. Both man and woman are from the Lord. Man and woman are interdependent in the Lord. In the Lord headship is not understood from a cultural point of view (v. 16). Headship begins with God. He impacts on Christ, and Christ unto the man. The man’s headship is not because he was created first. No! It’s because he has Christ as his head. This is why the metaphor of headship must be seen as theological. Ellen White understood this when she wrote:

“The Lord Jesus has not been correctly represented in His relation to the church by many husbands in their relation to their wives, for they do not keep the way of the Lord. They declare that their wives must be subject to them in everything. But it was not the design of God that the husband should have control, as head of the house, when he himself does not submit to Christ. He must be under the rule of Christ that he may represent the relation of Christ to the church. If he is a coarse, rough, boisterous, egotistical, harsh, and overbearing man, let him never utter the word that the husband is the head of the wife, and that she must submit to him in everything; for he is not the Lord, he is not the husband in the true significance of the term” ~ Ellen White, Adventist Home, p. 117 [Emphasis are mine].

In conclusion, Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians was to meet a problem. One of them was about headship. Since we know that not all men have Christ as their heads, we should understand the text in its context as Paul speaking to Christian men and women. Again, it must be noted that “aner” and “gunē” always meet to mean “husband” and “wife” especially when the “aner” is in the nominative. Headship should therefore be understood as both social and theological phenomenon. In a society where men are accorded with great respect and authority, their authority in the church does not come from the social norms. It comes from God. Our relationship with Him endows man with authority. Headship must be understood as a relational bond valid between a husband and wife. “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God” (v. 16).