I am wondering what are your thoughts on the idea of "mutual submission" within marital relationships. I personally think it sounds wonderfully appealing (as does most things that aren't Biblical) but it is not Biblical.

According to Nelta...(I am gaining this from other posts)that if leadership is based upon the servant/leader model then no one ever has "authority" over another. No one is the head of another. So in marital relationships, as the two mutually submit to each other and to God then they both are the mutually in submission to Christ as the Head. There would be no appointed head in the home outside of His Lordship.

I think I have it right. Problem is, it sounds good. I mean, to be quite honest, I wish this were truly so, but it is not reality. It is not Biblical. The Bible teaches that the husband is the head of the home - something I feel no need to make apologies for. Because I am the one deemed to be responsible for my family's spiritual direction and leadership. Sometimes it would be much easier to share that responsibility or to relinquish it outright, but nonetheless I will still be accountable for my family - not her.

What do you think?

-- Anonymous, October 27, 1999

Answers

Can't help but say something here, Mike.

Yes, the husband is the head of the wife....head here means source. I just wrote an article for my new web page on this very subject. The husband is to make the final decision on family matters. Of course, you have to take into consideration the fact that the wife is a helpmete and is to help in what way she can. The husband is the leader but as some would say...he is not the spiritual leader of the wife. Christ is the spiritual leader. If the husband were the spiritual leader he would be responable for the spiritual life of the wife. Of course, they are told to submit one to another.

BTW on the subject of elders. I believe in them. I also believe when one is a godly elder who is *tuned into* God, knowledgeable in the word and shows the fruits of the spirit (to those he is among) there is not a Christian anywhere that would not want to follow him and learn from him. This type man would not be for the purpose of running an institution but would be out among the sheep...knowing each and what his/her needs are.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Trying to exchange "head" for "source" has a neo-orthodox flavor to it. Below is a short article that Don Nash had in the Restoration Herald a few years back. Scott

Head - Source or Authority

Donald A. Nash

In some quarters the idea is being taught that the word head (Gr.- kephale) means source instead of in the sense of authority. This was claimed by Scott Bartchy in his article Power, Submission and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians as it appeared in the book Essays on New Testament Christianity edited by C. Robert Wetzel, a festschrift to honor Dean E. Walker. In the May 8th, 1994, Christian Standard, Jeannie S. Moss in an article on leadership dogmatically stated that the various translations of the New Testament had done us a grave injustice by translating kephale as head claiming it should be source. No documentation was given for this assertion as far as the proof of the position was concerned. This idea is definitely false despite the claims of some so called scholars. In the first place, in regard to a person kephale definitely means head and nothing else, as in the story of the head of John the Baptist. Of course, Paul uses it metaphorically but even if one thought he was using it to mean figuratively source that would not be a proper translation but an interpretation. This is the trouble with many translations, they interpret rather than translate exact meanings and let the readers have the privilege of interpreting on their own. In the second place, how could anyone think Paul was using it to mean source instead of authority over or rule in the light of what he says about Christ as the head of the church in Eph. 1:22 or 5:23 when the context plainly states he is talking about Christ being over the church and the church be subject or submissive to Him. This is about as an absurd twisting of Scripture as saying Acts 2:38 means repent and be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven. The idea of source for a translation of kephale robs Christ of His authority over the church, despite the fact He is called Lord 400 times in the New Testament. In Eph. 5:23 it deprives the father and husband of his proper place in the home. Modern problems in society show that the absence of the husbands authority causes disintegration of the family with its resultant social ills. Authority is needed in any realm of life. Without it in government you have anarchy; in business, bankruptcy; in industry, confusion, accidents, loss of production; in school, lack of discipline and failure; in hospital, death; in home, delinquency, dysfunctional families, and divorce. Certainly in the church it results in heresy and division. But mainly there is no linguistic evidence that head conveys metaphorically the idea of source rather that authority. This is the idea of certain revisionist of the New Testament without any real proof. Recognized New Testament lexicographers, Thayer and Cremer and the more recent Arndt and Gingrich do not list source as a possible meaning. Moulton and Milligans Vocabulary of Greek New Testament, based on papyri sources does not do so. Kittels definitive and authoritative volumes, Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words says, As regards the history of the term kephale in its theological significance the important point in secular usage is that it describes what is first, supreme or extreme. It does not say source was a popular metaphorical usage. It does mention it was used of the source of a river but in the same sentence that it was also used of the mouth of the river. It says in that in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Paul) it is used of the head or ruler of society. W.E. Vines popular and authoritative Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words does not give source as a legitimate usage but says metaphorically, of the authority and direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of husbands in relation to the wife. Despite this Stephen Bedale says,  In normal Greek usage, classical or contemporary kephale does not signify head in the sense of ruler, or chieftain of a community. But he never gives any evidence for this claim from any word study or lexical source. Then he goes on to claim the idea is generally source. It is claimed by some that Liddell-Scott lexicon which is primarily for classical usage does not list the sense of authority or ruler for kephale. Actually, it does give the idea that it referred to the chief of a tribe or group. There are at least 17 references in the Septuagint used by Paul where it has this meaning. The only real, but inadequate, evidence ever cited for the idea of source is in only two classical references cited by Liddell and Scott. One is in Herodotus 4.91 in which several head waters or beginnings of a river are termed kephale in the plural but in the singular in another reference it is used of the mouth or end of the river. Since Paul always uses it in the singular, this evidence would indicate that in Eph. 5:23 he is saying the husband is the mouth of the wife. (Facetiously, generally it is the other way around.) Anyway, it is incongruous to apply the same use in regard to an object (river) to a person (Christ or husband). This double use of the singular and plural shows that the term head was not being used in the sense of source at all but meant extremity. It is so used in the Septuagint of the ends or extremity of objects twenty-two times as in the ends of the poles by which the ark was carried (I Kings 8:8 - in LXX 3 Kings 8:8) The other classical reference is in Orphic Fragments 21a dated before Plato who quotes them (429-347 BC). The reading of kephale here in itself is uncertain and the meaning source is debatable. It more logically was used to mean beginning about Zeus in the same sense the Scriptures speak of Christ as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Such is the only linguistic evidence for the idea of source. Should we let two vague references, whose interpretation is debatable, in classical Greek, hundreds of years before Christ, change what has been the respected and accepted view of scholars such as Thayer, Cremer, Arndt and Gingrich, Moulton and Milligan; a view substantiated by the frequent use of kephale as ruler or authority in the Septuagint Old Testament? Wayne Grudem has made a statistical study of 2,336 examples of kephale from a computerized database at the University of California- Irvine, in sources ranging from Homer (8th century BC) to Libanus (4th century AD). It is used 2,034 times in its literal sense of the head of man or animal. Forty-nine times it means authority or ruler and never source as a person or thing from which something is derived. Other usages: whole person (119 times); life (as in capital punishment - 14); beginning (as in a series - 69); prominent part (6); summary or main point of argument, conclusion- (17); adverbial, as headlong, (28 times). It is also argued that in the New Testament era people did not think of the head as controlling the body as we do but rather the heart. It is true the New Testament speaks of the heart as the seat of intellect, emotions, will, and, conscience, but in the same figurative sense today we speak of love with all the heart or I believe with all my heart. Plato wrote in describing the human body, the head is the most divine part and which reigns (as despot) overall the parts within us. Philo, contemporary of Christ, said, As the head in the living body is the ruling place. This effort to give new meanings to words with no justification (especially the word head) is an attempt to conform the teachings of the New Testament to modern culture. This is sometimes justified by saying some of Pauls statements and terminology were just the culture of the day and not applicable today, so they should be changed to fit our needs. If this is carried to extremes, such teachers will be saying that baptism was part of that culture and so is not necessary today. As a matter of fact, such a statement was made in a letter to the editor of the Christian Standard a few years ago. The editor, Dr. Sam Stone, quickly refuted that statement. This effort to avoid the idea of authority or, in other areas of theological discussion, rules that should be obeyed is the result of the impact of the situation ethic philosophy that has become so popular in the secular world in the last fifty years. Such philosophy which has invaded the church has no absolutes; every question is relative; there is no dogmatic thus saith the Lord that is authoritative. The only absolute is the absolute that there are no absolutes. As in the days of Israel between judges, Everyone does what is right in his own eyes, or like do your own thing.

Gerhard Kittell, Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words Vol. III, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.., pgs. 673-675 2 W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Fleming H. Revell, Westwood, NJ., pg. 202 3 Stephen Bedale, the Meaning of kephale in Pauline Epistles, Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954), pgs. 211-215 4 Liddell and Scott, A Greek - English Lexicon - 7th. ed., 1882, Harper Bros. NY, pg. 801 5 Judges 10:18; 11:8,9,11, 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 22:44; 3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:1; Ps. 17 (18):43; Isaiah 7:8 (two times) 7:9 (twice); 9:14,16 (twice); Testament of Reuben 2:2; Philo On Dreams 2.207 Philo Moses 2:30; 2:82; Philo On Rewards and Punishment 1:25 6 Wayne Grudem, Appendix I - pg. 64, The Role - Relationship of Male and Female, George W. Night III, Moody Press 7 Plato, Timmaeus, 44.d 8 Philo, Life of Moses, 2.30 9 Christian Standard, Feb. 19, 1978, pg. 14

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Brother Demastus:

I only have a few minutes so this will not be a "lengthy diatribe" but I could not resist this rare opportunity for me to say a HEARTY AMEN AND AMEN to what you have siad in this post. A simple reading of 1Corintians 11:1-3 should make it clear that the "head of every man is Christ and the "head" of the woman is the man. One is just as true as the other! And it becomes even more emphatic when we read, " Wives be in subjection to your own husbands, AS UNTO THE LORD." Eph.5:22. And again, For the husband is the head of the wife, EVEN AS CHRIST ALSO IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, being himself the savior of the body. but, AS the church is SUBJECT to CHRIST so let the wives ALSO be to their husbands IN EVERYTHING." Eph. 5:23,24. But then comes the part that you so wisely mentioned, about the responsibility this places upon the MEN. " HUSBANDS, LOVE YOUR WIVES, EVEN AS CHRIST ALSO LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR IT. Eph. 5:25.

Then, Paul by inspiration summed up the whole matter. "Nevertheless do ye also severally LOVE EACH ONE HIS OWN WIFE EVEN AS HIMSELF; and let the wife see THAT SHE FEAR HER HUSBAND". Eph. 5:33.

These words from God are not popular today but they are as true now as when inspiration delivered them. The wisdom of these words can only be truly understood by those who humbly submit to them and OBEY them.

I am so happy to see you take this stand for the truth, Brother, and we can stand together on this one. You provide the gentle, kind and loving spirit and I will press the arguments as strongly as I possibly can! Ha! Who knows we might make a good team! Ha! There is some laughter for those who think that it is not possible for me to laugh! Ha!

Can you tell that I am happy to agree with you, Brother Mike?

I wish I had more time but I must write one more thing and go back to my "MCSE" studies!

I thank the Lord for your speaking the truth in this post Brother Demastus. I hope that you will stay in touch with me as we have spent some time getting to know each other. I pray that our Lord will abide with you and your family.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Brother Scott;

I cannot tell you how happy I am to see you again in this forum. Your post should be sufficient to settle once and for all the truth about the meaning of the Greek word "kephale"! Perfect timing of your response and scholarship at it's best. I wish I had time to comment further on your excellent post but for now I must go to help my wife whose father is terminally ill in China. please pray for Him Brother Scott. I just cannot praise your post enough. I truly regret not having the time at this moment to savor your irrefutable evidence that has been presented by you. I truly appreciate it. This one as well as some of the other great material you have sent to me will definately find a place in my files for future reference. Absolutely excellent!

I pray that our Lord will bountifull bless you and you lovely family and that you will have great success in proclaiming the gospel of Christ.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

I can't see that Bro. Scott's post proved anything. No one is saying the husband is not the leader of the family. What one is saying is that no human has any AUTHORITY over another to where he can RULE another's life. God gave no one that power.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

I only have a moment, so I'll try to be brief and pose a thought. We'll see where it goes from here.

The husband is certainly the head of the wife ... Bible is quite clear on this. But ... is the husband the head of the household? Now, I understand where we come from on this, but what do we do with the admonitions we find in Proverbs 31 ... The Godly Woman. Sure looks like a woman who is head of her household.

I just pose this 'cause I hear people make the statement that the husband is the head of the household quite often.

What do YOU think?

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Just a curious question in the midst of this discussion. What do we do with Eph. 5:21 in all of this? Are not husbands and wives to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ?

My real question is can't a husband submit to his wife on something yet still be the head of the wife?

The same thing holds true for elders in the church. Can't they submit to another Christian yet maintain their authority as an elder?

I think we often miss the mark with this. I see the husband as the head being a position of responsibility. We will have to answer to God for the condition of our family spiritually if we do not lead them as we should. I like the definition of submit that Tim Kimmel's wife gave in a video series. She defines submit as, "ducking so God can hit your husband."

The whole idea of wives submitting is so that the family can be what God wants it to be spiritually, but I think we focus to much on, "I'm in charge and you (wife) have to do what I tell you!" Hopefully if both are in Christ, then they will have the same ultimate goal for the family. God intended for husband and wife to compliment one another, not work against each other.

Just wanted to shre that.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Nelda:

Brother Scott's post proves conclusively the direct opposite of your following words:

"Yes, the husband is the head of the wife....head here means source".

That much is clear and you completely ignore the arguments made in his post concerning what the word "kephale" which is translated as "head" means in the the scriptures. Yes Nelta, Scott's article has proven much and you may wish to not see it but it is there in plain view. Now there are only two reasons why one does not see. Either they are blind or they have their eyes closed. I find it hard to believe that one with your demonstrated ability in this forum is blind. So it seems that you have chosen to close your eyes to the truth that the word "head" in the scriptures does not, as you have suggested, mean "source".

So Scott's post hit the nail on the "head" and that "pun" was intended.

Then you argue against a position that no one as far as I can tell has taken with these words:

"What one is saying is that no human has any AUTHORITY over another to where he can RULE another's life. God gave no one that power."

1 Corintians 11:7 tells us that the "woman is the glory of the man." No one is saying that she is his "footstool" or his "whipping post" or his "slave" but she is rather his helpmeet. But this fact does not negate the truth that the man is the "head of the woman" and that he therefore does have authority and responsibility over her in the same way that Christ has authority over the man. 1 Corinthians 11:1-4; Eph. 5:21-25. The idea of the man must also submit to the wife in the same way that the wife submits to the man is not taught anywhere in the scriptures.

I pray that our Lord will open your eyes to see the truth that Scott's post has presented from God's eternal word.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

E., you pray for me and I will pray for you that your vision will be without your traditional blinders.

To all: here is something I came across this morning on *head...source*. This is only a small part of a study one did on this subject.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The Father as Source of the Son:

If pagan deities were regarded as the source of the soul and of all life, what were the implications in Christian theology? St. Basil wrote that because the Son had the Father as His one source, it was said that God was the head of Christ. Athanasius declared that the Son had been begotten before the ages, not as though He were unbegotten of the father but that He had the Father who begot Him as His Source. He then quotes the words of Paul, "The Head of Christ is God." Twice in his Theology of the Church, Eusebius interpreted the Apostle Paul's statement that God is the head of Christ as meaning that God was His source.

The great apostle teaches that God is head of the Son and the Son of the church, for in one place he says" God is the head of Christ," and in another, speaking of the Son, "and he gave him as a head over all things to the church, which is his body." Surely then he would be author of the church and head, and the father author and head of him. Thus the one God is father of the only begotten Son and the one head of Christ. Since there is one source and head (kephale and arche), how would there be two gods, when that one alone claims as father no one higher nor any other causative principle.

Man as Source of Woman:

If the church fathers understood the headship of the Father to be that of source or causative principle, what are the implications in the male-female relationship? When the Bible speaks of man as the head of woman, does it mean "source" or chief, boss? Let me point out that in the New Testament Era kephale rarely had the sense of boss or chief as it does in English and Hebrew. Early commentators on I Cor. 11 who understood the Father to be Head (i.e. source) of the Son, also understood Christ as the source of man, and man as the source of woman. Cyril of Alexandria, Greek Father of the fifth century noted that St. Luke had looked beyond Adam and indicated the Creator God to be the Source and Origin of every man. He wrote, "Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ, because he was made through him and brought forward to birth.. . . And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh and has him as her source. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because He is from Him according to nature." Theodore of Moposuetia held that just as Christ was considered head of all who had been born anew in Him, so the woman has man as her head "since she had taken her being from him."

This concept of woman being taken out of man is repeated twice in I Corinthians, so that it would seem to define the sense in which man is woman's head.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Nelta -- a question from your post of the 28th? - - - - - "What one is saying is that no human has any AUTHORITY over another to where he can RULE another's life. God gave no one that power." - - - - - My bride brought up an interesting thought ...what about the parent- child relationship, from a biblical p.o.v? Does God not give parents not only the right, but the admonition to "rule" their childrens lives ... for their own good? Of course, as the children mature, the amount of "ruling over" changes, and takes on different forms.

Just a thought ... what do you think?

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Darrell,

Thanks for the question. The way I would answer that is one adult has no authority over another adult, in the kingdom. When a child grows up and leaves home the parents have no more authority. BTW ask your bride that she thinks about what I put on concerning *head----source.*

I am not through with this question but am studying up on scriptures concerning this matter.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999