Anna, reading this makes me grieve where we are and how overwhelming the disease in the church is. We hold the harm, and yet still strive to awe in the beauty of what is real. Your work is so thorough and truly leads to doxology. And yet, who has eyes to see? Who even wants to see? Why has this gone on for so long? I'm so thankful for you and your readers & fellow workers in this.
So many helpful connections here, Anna. I especially appreciate you linking historical theology to your ongoing study. There is a close logical connection between patriarchy and clericalism. If interested in additional resources on Calvin’s view of preaching, check out Jon Balserak’s recent article on the comparison of Zwingli and Calvin’s view of prophecy. Because 1 Cor 14 was a key text in the development their theology, there might be more overlap vis a vis the debate around 1 Cor 11. I also mention this because the linked Beach article discusses Zwingli vis a vis Calvin. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/271330189/Balserak_Prophets_183_193.pdf
Yes, Joy! Even without special revelation, clericalism is deduced from what the patriarchalists think that woman is by nature --- by creation both *secondary,* an afterthought created to glorify the man, and *inferior* (physical, intellectual, and emotional). They add to her pre-fall natural inferiority, her post-fall ethical corruption. They imagine clericalism makes sense of general revelation. Doug Wilson repeatedly says that God has built patriarchy into the fabric of the cosmos. For them, patriarchs ruling the church can be deduced from nature. In other words, God built patriarchy not only into the fabric of the world but into the fabric of the church. In "Masculine Christianity," Garris says that the woman by nature is disqualified from authority because “A man’s body is better suited for communicating authority, seen in his deeper voice and larger body. A woman’s body is not built for communicating authority but is designed to bear and nurse children” (232). A church that does not reflect this natural distinction is "grape juice Christianity,” weak” and effeminate (236). Garris says woman's natural weakness prohibits her from having authority in all spheres --- the home, the church, and broader society. He dismisses Deborah because ". . .the two women rulers in Israel, Jezebel and Athaliah, were wicked, and Deborah was not even a typical judge . . . (indeed) God mocks women rulers” in Isaiah (253, 256). The patriarchal understanding is devoid of even basic, common respect for their neighbors who are women. They call their anthropology Christian, while they distort the glory of God who said, "Let *us* make mankind in *our* image and after *our* likeness," calling *them* to "subdue" and "rule." That is why I think that we cannot in truth mirror what we are supposed to in worship while we continue with twisted conceptions of who we are as male and female. What do you think?
Isn’t it telling that the first explicit instance of clericalism in the Bible coincides with patriarchal abuse? Eli’s sons and clericalism: rules apply to others (they are still overseeing and administering the sacrificial system) but not to them:
1 Samuel 2:12-14 Eli's sons were wicked men; they did not respect the LORD [13] or the priests' share of the sacrifices from the people. When anyone offered a sacrifice, the priest's servant would come with a three-pronged meat fork while the meat was boiling [14] and plunge it into the container, kettle, cauldron, or cooking pot. The priest would claim for himself whatever the meat fork brought up. This is the way they treated all the Israelites who came there to Shiloh.
Patriarchal clericalism: if men rule, male priests rule even more, and it is especially women who suffer:
1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old. He heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they were sleeping with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
I always thought the phrase "because of the angels" in 1 Cor. 11:10 was a remex or "hint" used in Jewish interpretation to 1 Cor. 6:3 where we will "judge the angels" in the future. In other words, the woman had authority over her own head in the present because eschatologically she will have authority, like a man, in the future judgment of angels.
The things which most stood out to me in this excellent article:
“If women are viewed categorically with suspicion, then there will be no freedom in giving and receiving from half our neighbors — no purposeful knowing and being known, no eternal sowing or reaping in each other’s lives.”
“Reformed anthropology has hobbled the church. As presently understood, it lends itself to the effacing and silencing of half of those who bear God’s image in worship, and not only half.”
“In Calvin’s mind, mere men are to consider themselves, and to be considered by their people, the public face and voice of Christ.”
“I hope that the eyes of our hearts can be open to an understanding of ourselves that does not lead us to compare ourselves with ourselves with a goal of exalting ourselves or silencing our neighbor”
Calvin asserted that ‘God does not wish to be heard but by the voice of his ministers.’
Calvin was discounting and virtually erasing the activity of the Spirit.
John 3:8: “The wind blows where it will, and you hear its sound, but cannot tell from whence it comes and where it goes. That is how it is with everyone that is born of the Spirit.”
Anna, here’s a book you might find interesting: “The Judaizing Calvin” by Aegiddius Hunnius.
From the blurb on Amazon: “In ‘The Judaizing Calvin,’ Lutheran theologian Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) analyzes the writings of John Calvin, the chief teacher of the Reformed Church—and documents a persistent pattern of interpretation in Calvin which undermines the fundamental teachings of the New Testament concerning Christ Jesus. Hunnius contends that Calvin was a ‘judaizing’ theologian—one who favored a Rabbinic Jewish interpretation of Old Testament prophecies—and that Calvin's interpretations undermined the New Testament teachings concerning the Incarnation, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Hunnius provides the reader with a passionate and substantial refutation of Calvin's flawed interpretations, and upholds the apostolic understanding of the connection between Old Testament Messianic prophecy and the New Testament fulfillment of those prophecies.”
Yes, Barbara, your thoughts on the Spirit are the same ones that come to my mind when reading Beach's article. Hunnius's work sounds very interesting. Thank you for commenting.
In addition to Hunnius, you might find it helpful to read “The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2” by Ruth Magnusson Davis. One of the themes in that book is how the translators of Geneva Bible introduced a new (bad) spirit.
If you’re not familiar with the Matthew Bible, here’s a quick overview:
I have suspected for quite some time that the passages that are most often cited against women and used to devalue her are the very places where we will find something truly glorious revealed about her. I would consider 1 Timothy 2, I Cor. 11, Eph. 5, and 1 Peter 3 among those. Because we do not understand the foundations of gender, there is always confusion on those passages and the commentaries are all over the place. As I see it, there are many ways that head (kefale) is used depending on the context of a passage: (1) literal body part; (2) representative head (one standing in for many); (3) symbolic head; (4) source (fountainhead); (5) authoritative head (executive head). The difficulty with this passage is that it begins with the new era inaugurated in Christ [Christ is the head of every man (aner)] and yet it immediately seems to go back to the order of the Genesis 2 garden with the man as the head of woman. Then it goes forward again to the new era with "God is the head of Christ." So when I read "Christ is the head of the man (male)," I tend to rule out (1), but when I get to 11:4 "Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head," then I have to put (1) back in. So it seems at this point that we are dealing with several related understandings of "head," where (1) becomes a symbol and type for one of the others [(2)-(5)]. Though the male priest covered his head in the old order (Lev. 10:6), he is uncovered in the new order. There is no law about women covering themselves in the old order, but the woman in worship is covered in the new order.
So when we get to verse 7, we see that covering or not covering one's literal head is a symbolic act and the symbolism takes us back again to the garden. Man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Notice that image is not mentioned again, just glory. At this point, it seems that we are talking about (2), (3), or (4). (5), authority, will come into the picture in verse 10, but not how we would expect. The woman is or has authority in that verse. So in verse 7, the man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man. It is important to see that the woman is not the image of the man. Image is left out, and glory alone remains. So we are not talking about Genesis 1:27 creation but about Genesis 2 order, which I see as reflecting trinitarian persons and covenant. The *internal* order of the three trinitarian persons, equal in power and glory, involves two "circulations" (processions/perichoresis): The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. In the *external* order of God's revelation of himself in heaven, the first circulation is bound up with the Throne of the Father and Son, and the second circulation is bound up with the procession of the Spirit-City/Zion from the throne, which is how I read Is. 6:1-8. The Spirit-robe forms the heavenly tabernacle, and the Spirit-smoke fills it. Finally, the earthly *covenantal* order is man first, who represents the Son, eternally begotten of the Father, as well as the Throne from which proceeds the City. Thus Adam becomes the covenantal head and means (perfect and personal obedience) of obtaining the *end* which comes second. What comes second is represented by the woman. She represents the Spirit as eternally proceeding from the Father and Son, and she represents the Spirit-city which proceeds from the Throne of the Father and Son. In the garden, the woman Eve is the glory of Adam in a way analogous to the Spirit-City radiating the glory of the Father and Son upon the Throne.
These categories help me make more sense of the emphasis on the woman's hair and veil in v. 2-6. If woman represents the Spirit/Sabbath city in Genesis 2, it makes sense that her hair is uncovered in innocence before sin enters the world. God openly lays before Adam and Eve in the "Tree of Life" and the "River" of life the promise of the Sabbath realm. The heavenly goal is placed before them. The woman generally, and her hair or glory train more specifically, come to represent that goal, the mountain of the Lord, the Spirit-city (SoS 4:1). Eve is made for Adam in the sense that she stands before him representing his goal. She is a visible sign of the Spirit-city, beckoning Adam onward and upward, to overcome the serpent and reach the end for which he was made.
When sin enters the world, the Sabbath city is veiled. The woman's glory-train (11:6, cf. Is. 6:1) is hidden from sight until the Second Adam from heaven should do the work that the first Adam failed to do. Then her glory will break through and she will be revealed (Rev. 21-22). The man is unveiled because the Son from heaven has been unveiled. The woman, representative of the angelic realm, is veiled because what she represents is veiled. It has yet to be revealed. She is part of the "not yet," what remains hidden, what awaits us as the people of God. Paul talks about that veiled glory in other places --- 2 Corinthians 4 comes to mind.
The authority on the woman's head (11:10, no "symbol" in Greek) resurfaces in Revelation 12:1, a sign in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars (symbolic of angels) on her head. The veil stands with the authority of the angelic realm. It does not debase her, but rather exalts her. This is why Paul uses the Greek adversative πλὴν in 11:11. He has taken her symbolism to heaven, and now he needs to bring her back to earth. "Nevertheless, the woman is not independent of man."
This is a very long and insufficient answer that gives an outline for another option for interpretation. I get very excited thinking what others might find in this passage when our gender paradigms are corrected to show what God is really telling us about himself by making us male and female.
It is exciting to me to think that Paul wants all this on display in worship.
One last thought is that I think it is too strong to say that the man never mediates the glory of the woman. He mediates her glory as he stands to represent sonship. She mediates his glory as she represents cityhood. He mediates her glory as a son in the Son, and she mediates his glory as a bride in the Spirit.
Anna, your thoughts are glorious. I'll have to read your article and this reply numerous times to take it all in properly.
I went in the same direction for 1 Cor 11: the woman has her own authority.
For HEAD I went with union. Head = Union. In “What is the Ministry of Christ as Head?” by Valerie Jacobson, where she shared her study notes of the church fathers seeing the head/body language meaning union.
I will share a Valerie Jacobsen quote:
"This note is mostly selections from the Bible, from the Westminster Standards, and from church history. I have added a few comments of my own and some emphases through bold type or italics wherever I thought it would be helpful for me as I use this note for my reference.
I believe that these quotes suggest that the head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5 could be purely a reference to union, which to my mind fits the context of Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 far better than either ‘source’ (the egalitarian preference) or ‘authority over’ (the complementarian preference).” – Valerie Jacobsen.
Sarah, I really like your thoughts. Yes, the head-body metaphor is so interesting to me. I agree with union being an important (most important?) facet. If the archetype of head-body is the Spirit (body) encompassing the Throne (head) and filling the Ones seated upon it (Father and Son), i. e. Augustine's love bond, then this intertrinitarian embrace magnifying unity must be front and center. Where does the head stop and body begin? For example, the eye is part of body in 1 Cor. 12:16.
...Ephesians 5 could be purely a reference to union, which to my mind fits the context of Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 far better than either ‘source’ (the egalitarian preference)...
Most egalitarians interpret kephale as "source", but there is a lesser known interpretation put forth by people like Katherine Bushnell that the description of Christ as the Head in the New Testament is a reference to Psalm 118:22-The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. The cornerstone was the first stone laid that was of immense size and bound the sides of a building together. Ephesians 2:16 -22 uses this metaphor to show Christ will reconcile the church into one body through a bond of peace into a Holy Temple through the spirit where everyone is build up into the head. The onus is put on the husband to reconcile his wife to himself in a bond of peace and love (not authority) to become one with him as part of the whole church. The wife for her part submits to that bond of love and peace to become one with the husband. This is a process of reconciliation between the husband, wife, and Christ to fix the errors of patriarchal tradition. So yes, this is about Union.
Anna, reading this makes me grieve where we are and how overwhelming the disease in the church is. We hold the harm, and yet still strive to awe in the beauty of what is real. Your work is so thorough and truly leads to doxology. And yet, who has eyes to see? Who even wants to see? Why has this gone on for so long? I'm so thankful for you and your readers & fellow workers in this.
So many helpful connections here, Anna. I especially appreciate you linking historical theology to your ongoing study. There is a close logical connection between patriarchy and clericalism. If interested in additional resources on Calvin’s view of preaching, check out Jon Balserak’s recent article on the comparison of Zwingli and Calvin’s view of prophecy. Because 1 Cor 14 was a key text in the development their theology, there might be more overlap vis a vis the debate around 1 Cor 11. I also mention this because the linked Beach article discusses Zwingli vis a vis Calvin. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/271330189/Balserak_Prophets_183_193.pdf
The connection between patriarchy and clericalism — this deserves more attention, maybe a post or two…!
Yes, Joy! Even without special revelation, clericalism is deduced from what the patriarchalists think that woman is by nature --- by creation both *secondary,* an afterthought created to glorify the man, and *inferior* (physical, intellectual, and emotional). They add to her pre-fall natural inferiority, her post-fall ethical corruption. They imagine clericalism makes sense of general revelation. Doug Wilson repeatedly says that God has built patriarchy into the fabric of the cosmos. For them, patriarchs ruling the church can be deduced from nature. In other words, God built patriarchy not only into the fabric of the world but into the fabric of the church. In "Masculine Christianity," Garris says that the woman by nature is disqualified from authority because “A man’s body is better suited for communicating authority, seen in his deeper voice and larger body. A woman’s body is not built for communicating authority but is designed to bear and nurse children” (232). A church that does not reflect this natural distinction is "grape juice Christianity,” weak” and effeminate (236). Garris says woman's natural weakness prohibits her from having authority in all spheres --- the home, the church, and broader society. He dismisses Deborah because ". . .the two women rulers in Israel, Jezebel and Athaliah, were wicked, and Deborah was not even a typical judge . . . (indeed) God mocks women rulers” in Isaiah (253, 256). The patriarchal understanding is devoid of even basic, common respect for their neighbors who are women. They call their anthropology Christian, while they distort the glory of God who said, "Let *us* make mankind in *our* image and after *our* likeness," calling *them* to "subdue" and "rule." That is why I think that we cannot in truth mirror what we are supposed to in worship while we continue with twisted conceptions of who we are as male and female. What do you think?
Isn’t it telling that the first explicit instance of clericalism in the Bible coincides with patriarchal abuse? Eli’s sons and clericalism: rules apply to others (they are still overseeing and administering the sacrificial system) but not to them:
1 Samuel 2:12-14 Eli's sons were wicked men; they did not respect the LORD [13] or the priests' share of the sacrifices from the people. When anyone offered a sacrifice, the priest's servant would come with a three-pronged meat fork while the meat was boiling [14] and plunge it into the container, kettle, cauldron, or cooking pot. The priest would claim for himself whatever the meat fork brought up. This is the way they treated all the Israelites who came there to Shiloh.
Patriarchal clericalism: if men rule, male priests rule even more, and it is especially women who suffer:
1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old. He heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they were sleeping with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
I love this!
So good, Anna. And as Aimee said, so much to grieve. Thank you.
I always thought the phrase "because of the angels" in 1 Cor. 11:10 was a remex or "hint" used in Jewish interpretation to 1 Cor. 6:3 where we will "judge the angels" in the future. In other words, the woman had authority over her own head in the present because eschatologically she will have authority, like a man, in the future judgment of angels.
Very interesting, Shoshana. You always give me more to think about and a fresh angle. So thankful for your insights.
Great work Anna!
Thank you, John, for your constant encouragement.
The things which most stood out to me in this excellent article:
“If women are viewed categorically with suspicion, then there will be no freedom in giving and receiving from half our neighbors — no purposeful knowing and being known, no eternal sowing or reaping in each other’s lives.”
“Reformed anthropology has hobbled the church. As presently understood, it lends itself to the effacing and silencing of half of those who bear God’s image in worship, and not only half.”
“In Calvin’s mind, mere men are to consider themselves, and to be considered by their people, the public face and voice of Christ.”
“I hope that the eyes of our hearts can be open to an understanding of ourselves that does not lead us to compare ourselves with ourselves with a goal of exalting ourselves or silencing our neighbor”
Calvin asserted that ‘God does not wish to be heard but by the voice of his ministers.’
Calvin was discounting and virtually erasing the activity of the Spirit.
John 3:8: “The wind blows where it will, and you hear its sound, but cannot tell from whence it comes and where it goes. That is how it is with everyone that is born of the Spirit.”
Anna, here’s a book you might find interesting: “The Judaizing Calvin” by Aegiddius Hunnius.
From the blurb on Amazon: “In ‘The Judaizing Calvin,’ Lutheran theologian Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) analyzes the writings of John Calvin, the chief teacher of the Reformed Church—and documents a persistent pattern of interpretation in Calvin which undermines the fundamental teachings of the New Testament concerning Christ Jesus. Hunnius contends that Calvin was a ‘judaizing’ theologian—one who favored a Rabbinic Jewish interpretation of Old Testament prophecies—and that Calvin's interpretations undermined the New Testament teachings concerning the Incarnation, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Hunnius provides the reader with a passionate and substantial refutation of Calvin's flawed interpretations, and upholds the apostolic understanding of the connection between Old Testament Messianic prophecy and the New Testament fulfillment of those prophecies.”
Yes, Barbara, your thoughts on the Spirit are the same ones that come to my mind when reading Beach's article. Hunnius's work sounds very interesting. Thank you for commenting.
You’re welcome Anna. 💛
In addition to Hunnius, you might find it helpful to read “The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2” by Ruth Magnusson Davis. One of the themes in that book is how the translators of Geneva Bible introduced a new (bad) spirit.
If you’re not familiar with the Matthew Bible, here’s a quick overview:
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2018/05/28/the-matthew-bible-is-the-first-complete-english-bible-and-ruth-m-davis-is-gently-updating-for-modern-readers/
Excellent
Thank you for your encouragement!
What is your take on 1 Cor. 11 as this is most likely where the glory of man being related to God and glory of woman being related to man comes from?
I have suspected for quite some time that the passages that are most often cited against women and used to devalue her are the very places where we will find something truly glorious revealed about her. I would consider 1 Timothy 2, I Cor. 11, Eph. 5, and 1 Peter 3 among those. Because we do not understand the foundations of gender, there is always confusion on those passages and the commentaries are all over the place. As I see it, there are many ways that head (kefale) is used depending on the context of a passage: (1) literal body part; (2) representative head (one standing in for many); (3) symbolic head; (4) source (fountainhead); (5) authoritative head (executive head). The difficulty with this passage is that it begins with the new era inaugurated in Christ [Christ is the head of every man (aner)] and yet it immediately seems to go back to the order of the Genesis 2 garden with the man as the head of woman. Then it goes forward again to the new era with "God is the head of Christ." So when I read "Christ is the head of the man (male)," I tend to rule out (1), but when I get to 11:4 "Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head," then I have to put (1) back in. So it seems at this point that we are dealing with several related understandings of "head," where (1) becomes a symbol and type for one of the others [(2)-(5)]. Though the male priest covered his head in the old order (Lev. 10:6), he is uncovered in the new order. There is no law about women covering themselves in the old order, but the woman in worship is covered in the new order.
So when we get to verse 7, we see that covering or not covering one's literal head is a symbolic act and the symbolism takes us back again to the garden. Man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Notice that image is not mentioned again, just glory. At this point, it seems that we are talking about (2), (3), or (4). (5), authority, will come into the picture in verse 10, but not how we would expect. The woman is or has authority in that verse. So in verse 7, the man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man. It is important to see that the woman is not the image of the man. Image is left out, and glory alone remains. So we are not talking about Genesis 1:27 creation but about Genesis 2 order, which I see as reflecting trinitarian persons and covenant. The *internal* order of the three trinitarian persons, equal in power and glory, involves two "circulations" (processions/perichoresis): The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. In the *external* order of God's revelation of himself in heaven, the first circulation is bound up with the Throne of the Father and Son, and the second circulation is bound up with the procession of the Spirit-City/Zion from the throne, which is how I read Is. 6:1-8. The Spirit-robe forms the heavenly tabernacle, and the Spirit-smoke fills it. Finally, the earthly *covenantal* order is man first, who represents the Son, eternally begotten of the Father, as well as the Throne from which proceeds the City. Thus Adam becomes the covenantal head and means (perfect and personal obedience) of obtaining the *end* which comes second. What comes second is represented by the woman. She represents the Spirit as eternally proceeding from the Father and Son, and she represents the Spirit-city which proceeds from the Throne of the Father and Son. In the garden, the woman Eve is the glory of Adam in a way analogous to the Spirit-City radiating the glory of the Father and Son upon the Throne.
These categories help me make more sense of the emphasis on the woman's hair and veil in v. 2-6. If woman represents the Spirit/Sabbath city in Genesis 2, it makes sense that her hair is uncovered in innocence before sin enters the world. God openly lays before Adam and Eve in the "Tree of Life" and the "River" of life the promise of the Sabbath realm. The heavenly goal is placed before them. The woman generally, and her hair or glory train more specifically, come to represent that goal, the mountain of the Lord, the Spirit-city (SoS 4:1). Eve is made for Adam in the sense that she stands before him representing his goal. She is a visible sign of the Spirit-city, beckoning Adam onward and upward, to overcome the serpent and reach the end for which he was made.
When sin enters the world, the Sabbath city is veiled. The woman's glory-train (11:6, cf. Is. 6:1) is hidden from sight until the Second Adam from heaven should do the work that the first Adam failed to do. Then her glory will break through and she will be revealed (Rev. 21-22). The man is unveiled because the Son from heaven has been unveiled. The woman, representative of the angelic realm, is veiled because what she represents is veiled. It has yet to be revealed. She is part of the "not yet," what remains hidden, what awaits us as the people of God. Paul talks about that veiled glory in other places --- 2 Corinthians 4 comes to mind.
The authority on the woman's head (11:10, no "symbol" in Greek) resurfaces in Revelation 12:1, a sign in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars (symbolic of angels) on her head. The veil stands with the authority of the angelic realm. It does not debase her, but rather exalts her. This is why Paul uses the Greek adversative πλὴν in 11:11. He has taken her symbolism to heaven, and now he needs to bring her back to earth. "Nevertheless, the woman is not independent of man."
This is a very long and insufficient answer that gives an outline for another option for interpretation. I get very excited thinking what others might find in this passage when our gender paradigms are corrected to show what God is really telling us about himself by making us male and female.
It is exciting to me to think that Paul wants all this on display in worship.
One last thought is that I think it is too strong to say that the man never mediates the glory of the woman. He mediates her glory as he stands to represent sonship. She mediates his glory as she represents cityhood. He mediates her glory as a son in the Son, and she mediates his glory as a bride in the Spirit.
Anna, I applaud you for your careful and insightful thinking about 1 Cor 11. 👏👏👏👏.
I hope you will at some stage publish your comment as a stand-alone article.
Anna, your thoughts are glorious. I'll have to read your article and this reply numerous times to take it all in properly.
I went in the same direction for 1 Cor 11: the woman has her own authority.
For HEAD I went with union. Head = Union. In “What is the Ministry of Christ as Head?” by Valerie Jacobson, where she shared her study notes of the church fathers seeing the head/body language meaning union.
I will share a Valerie Jacobsen quote:
"This note is mostly selections from the Bible, from the Westminster Standards, and from church history. I have added a few comments of my own and some emphases through bold type or italics wherever I thought it would be helpful for me as I use this note for my reference.
I believe that these quotes suggest that the head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5 could be purely a reference to union, which to my mind fits the context of Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 far better than either ‘source’ (the egalitarian preference) or ‘authority over’ (the complementarian preference).” – Valerie Jacobsen.
https://donald-owsley.squarespace.com/bible-studies/what-is-the-ministry-of-christ-as-the-head
Sarah, I really like your thoughts. Yes, the head-body metaphor is so interesting to me. I agree with union being an important (most important?) facet. If the archetype of head-body is the Spirit (body) encompassing the Throne (head) and filling the Ones seated upon it (Father and Son), i. e. Augustine's love bond, then this intertrinitarian embrace magnifying unity must be front and center. Where does the head stop and body begin? For example, the eye is part of body in 1 Cor. 12:16.
...Ephesians 5 could be purely a reference to union, which to my mind fits the context of Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 far better than either ‘source’ (the egalitarian preference)...
Most egalitarians interpret kephale as "source", but there is a lesser known interpretation put forth by people like Katherine Bushnell that the description of Christ as the Head in the New Testament is a reference to Psalm 118:22-The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. The cornerstone was the first stone laid that was of immense size and bound the sides of a building together. Ephesians 2:16 -22 uses this metaphor to show Christ will reconcile the church into one body through a bond of peace into a Holy Temple through the spirit where everyone is build up into the head. The onus is put on the husband to reconcile his wife to himself in a bond of peace and love (not authority) to become one with him as part of the whole church. The wife for her part submits to that bond of love and peace to become one with the husband. This is a process of reconciliation between the husband, wife, and Christ to fix the errors of patriarchal tradition. So yes, this is about Union.
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply. Much to think about.
Thanks Aaron Mize, I will read your article.