When I was homeless, and living on the street, I remember sitting on a bench along the Atlantic City Boardwalk on a cool, partly cloudy day. With the city being known for its gambling scene and lined with casinos, you can imagine the constant stream of ads trying to lure people inside these establishments, promising easy money, only for many to walk out broke.
One casino ad in particular has stuck with me because it was so unbelievably ridiculous—and cheesy on top of that. It was a video billboard playing a four- or five‑minute clip of people flashing wads of cash, dripping in jewelry, drinking, smiling on yachts, and living what America likes to call “the good life.”
The problem was that the song playing in the background was “For the Love of Money” by the O’Jays. If you’ve never heard it—this song does not glorify money in that manner. In fact, it talks about how people will “steal from their mothers” and “rob their own brothers” for the love of money, warning the listener, “don’t let money change you.”
So there I was, watching this video—as I remember it—of a young man with gold teeth, shown in slow motion, grinning from ear to ear and holding stacks of cash in both hands while the audio sang, “For the love of money, people will steal from their mothers.”
I couldn’t help but burst out laughing. It was obvious someone had never listened to the actual lyrics. They probably just heard the word, “money” and thought it was a brilliant marketing move. Major fail.
But, in the same way we misread a song by latching on to one word or phrase, we often read or hear a single verse of Scripture and cling to it, shaping it into whatever meaning we prefer while ignoring—or simply not taking the time to examine—the surrounding context.
For this reason, although the focus has always been on 1 Corinthians 11, I began this study back in chapter 1. If you haven’t read those earlier posts, I believe doing so would be helpful before continuing.
However, now we turn to the passage often cited as proof of male headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. And here my argument is simple: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is not about male authority or female submission, but about unity, cultural diversity, and distinguishing God’s truth from human tradition. In this final part of our study on whether “male headship” is a biblical concept, we are examining verses 2-3.
We’ll begin by breaking up the passage into sections and analyzing each section to discover the passage’s core message. Finally, by evaluating the text alongside the context established since chapter 1, we will determine whether Paul actually advocates for, implements, or even acknowledges the concept of male authority over women. Let’s get started.
Before we look at verses 2–3, we need to understand the cultural and literary setting Paul is writing in.
Addressing Cultural Differences In the Church
You might be aware that the verses and chapters in the Bible were not divinely inspired nor included by the original authors, but were introduced much later. These divisions can sometimes create confusion by making readers think a new topic has started.
There is a tendency to read the Bible like a textbook—where the author jumps randomly from one subject to another separated by a neat little header— as if “train of thought” didn’t exist back then. Such is often the case with 1 Corinthians 11.
In reality, Paul’s message to the Corinthians is a single, uninterrupted letter, with the core teachings from the beginning of the letter still being developed into chapter 11.
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. —1 Cor. 1:10 NIV
To recap earlier points, these central themes include: agreement among believers concerning teachings, the responsible and sacrificial exercise of personal freedom, and the pursuit of harmony over discord—all of these factors being instrumental to unity. This background helps clarify Paul’s intent in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.
Unlike what many people believe, this passage is not about male authority and female submission. Nor is it a lesson on head coverings. Within a growing and diverse church, Paul’s aim continues to be to promote unity and peace among differences.
That’s what this passage is about. It’s about separating God’s truth from human religion and tradition to make the best choice for keeping the church united. This concern is clear throughout the letter.
Considering Paul’s earlier instructions not to cause conflict over food offered to idols and not to become arrogant when one person has more understanding than another, we can see that he was addressing tensions rooted in differing levels of knowledge, personal convictions, and freedoms.
He now turns his attention to cultural issues in this section, as he urges being “non-striking-against” toward Jews, Greeks, and the entire church (includes any other people group existing within the community). This division between different groups of people is deliberate, serving to introduce the concept of cultural variations. Let’s first take a look at verse 2.
Verses 2-3
In the NIV, 1 Corinthians verse 2 displays as follows:
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
Let’s take a moment to think about this. First, it appears that Paul does not actually offer praise to the Corinthians for adhering to his instructions. Had they truly been following his guidance and keeping his teachings as instructed, this epistle—and his call for them to follow his example—would likely be unnecessary, as they would have been doing so already.
Also, given his concern about divisions resulting from preferring some teachers’ doctrines over others’ (1 Cor. 1:11-13), it’s clear they were not all sticking to Paul’s teachings or maintaining unity; and let’s not get started on the Lord’s Supper which they apparently defiled (1 Cor. 11:17-34). Paul had obviously taught them about it, yet they were clearly not putting those teachings into practice.
Therefore, for Paul to make a statement commending them would be a lie—unless he is referring to specific teachings, which seems to be the case given the context that follows. The Greek word translated as “holding” in this verse, simply means “to keep in mind” or “to remember.” There is nothing in the wording that suggests they were living out the teachings — only that they kept them in memory.
So, rather than “church doctrine,” the teachings Paul refers to are most likely those foundational teachings of God that have been passed down through humanity for generations, such as the creation story, including the creation of the first man and woman.
The Corinthians received these teachings and kept them in remembrance, as Paul’s later statements in the passage make clear. Therefore, he applauds them for this. But it appears there were misunderstandings about what these teachings actually meant.
With that in mind, Paul moves into a statement that has sparked much debate. Before we can understand his point, we need to look closer at the word he uses. Next, let’s look at verse three, beginning with a few thoughts on the Greek word kephalē.
Kephalē
The NIV displays verse 3 as follows:
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
I want to briefly address the issue of the word “head” translated from the Greek word kephalē. There are plenty of well‑informed, detailed studies on this term—both in print and online—if you’d like to do a deep dive. But in my opinion, the word kephalē in this verse cannot be referring to “head” as a general leadership role.
This is because it would raise the question of why Paul would exclude women and children from being under the authority of Christ. Scripture consistently speaks of Christ as the head of the church—which includes men, women, boys, and girls. It never presents him as the head or leader of men only.
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
— Ephesians 4:11-16
The only way the interpretation of “leader” or “authority” would work is if “the anointed one”—the christos—referred to someone other than Jesus, such as a priest, prophet, or another person chosen for God’s work. That, however, seems unlikely.
Nevertheless, what I’ve concluded is that no matter which English word is used—“head,” “source,” or “origin”—the underlying idea always comes back to the concept of “a beginning” or a “point of origin.” It always points back to a source.
To expound on this, today, we understand that the physical head, which houses the brain, directs nearly all bodily functions. It serves as the command center, the leader of the body, and the source of instruction and mobility. Generally, the work of the body starts with a downward flow of instruction from the head.
Even without modern science, ancient people would have understood the head as the top of the body — a natural metaphor for something that stands above or serves as a starting point.
Essentially, the core idea of kephalē, as I believe it, is that everything flows from the top down—like the headwaters of a river or a decree issued by a king. Everything traces back to a defining source or origin. So even when interpreted as “leader,” kephalē still conveys the idea of a beginning.
To be clear, this vertical structure is about where things originate and how they’re passed down—not about authority, rank, or superiority. Thus, in the order of the hierarchy Paul mentions, the flow — not of authority, but from point of origin or reference point — is from the anointed one to every man, and from the man to the woman, in that order.
His final statement is a pronouncement meant to underscore that above all, the flow or product ultimately comes from the one above the anointed one—it comes from God. And what comes from God is original, pure, and utterly undefiled.
I’ve developed two theories about what I believe “source” could mean in these verses. I’ll start with the one I think is possible but less likely, and then I’ll present the interpretation I favor most.
“Origin” or “Source” In Context
To be clear, men are not the physical or spiritual “source” of women. First, only one woman in history was formed from a man, and second, that woman’s source—as with every other woman, man, and child—has always been, and will always be—God.
A part of one man—a part created by the Lord—was simply used to fashion a companion for the man; all the man did was sleep. God did all the work and God gave the breath of life.
So, though the woman came through or by means of the man, her origin or source was undeniably, God. So what makes more sense is that Paul is referring to a specific kind of source, but not a source of existence.
Theory 1 – The Source of the Teachings Handed Down
Based on the surrounding context, Paul is possibly speaking about the source of the teachings being handed down. In that society, women learned many things from their male guardians or “kyrios” (lord/master/guardian)—whether a husband, father, or another male relative (“If they desire to learn anything, they should ask their men at home” 1 Cor. 14:35).
So the traditions Paul refers to would have flowed from God to Christ, from Christ to the men, and from the men to the women. By hearing teachings in the marketplaces, receiving instruction in the synagogues, and participating in their men‑only assemblies, knowledge would have been transmitted to “every man”, who then relayed it to the women within his household.
Men were a step above the women not because men were superior, but because that’s how their society functioned. This reflects the social reality of how knowledge typically flowed in their culture and time, and Paul is acknowledging that structure.
So, to put things into better perspective: he encourages them to imitate him and applauds them for maintaining the teachings as he handed them down. But he wants them to understand that ultimately, these teachings do not have their origin with him, or with any other human being, or even the anointed one alone—they come from God.
But, I want you to understand that the source of every man is the anointed one, and (the) source of a woman (is) the man, but (the) source of the anointed one is God.
— 1 Corinthians 11:3 (My Translation)
We see here a hierarchy of teaching—one that flows downward, resulting in teachings that are “passed down.” For women, the source of these teachings would generally be their men; for every man, the source is the anointed one; and for the anointed one, the source is God. So the flow of teaching looked like this:
-
God → Christ
-
Christ → men (ex. The Apostles → men in general)
-
men → women
Above all is God. He is the ultimate source of truth, and his word stands above every other teaching from every other source. Paul seems to be emphasizing this as a foundational point before taking on the task of separating God’s truth from human traditions which I’ll discuss in another post. But why would this be necessary?
If you’ve ever played the game “Telephone” in school, you know firsthand how an original message passed between people can get completely jacked up, really quickly. That may well have been the case in Corinth, and it could be why Paul wants to make sure they hold to the teachings exactly as he passed them on.
Just as water that begins pure can become tainted after flowing through several channels, a teaching can become distorted as it moves from person to person. It tends to get mixed with other “elements” as it goes.
So, as it has been since the beginning of mankind (Gen. 3:2-3), it is likely that in Corinth, the pure teachings of God became corrupted. Though they faithfully held to the teachings Paul passed down, the Corinthians went beyond what was written, creating their own doctrines around misunderstandings of those teachings, thus creating division and strife. Therefore, correction was needed.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. —1 Corinthians 4:6 NIV.
While this first theory fits the cultural flow of teaching, there is another possibility that aligns even more closely with Paul’s language. Next, I will present my second theory regarding the meaning of source in these verses.
Theory 2 – The Source or Origin of the Image/Glory/Reflection
My second theory is that “source” refers to the origin of an image — the original from which a reflection is formed. The reference to men specifically may stem from Paul’s teaching that men should love their wives just as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25–33)—a model of self‑sacrifice. In this way, the man is to be the reflection of Christ within his household, and Christ is the source or origin of that man who bears his image.
The woman, following the man’s leading as was customary in that society, would then reflect the man’s character and teaching, making him her immediate source or example. And of course, the source of Christ is God. Jesus is the exact image and representation of the Father (Heb. 1:3). This interpretation connects naturally to Paul’s urging that the Corinthians mirror him as he mirrors Christ.
The men’s interactions with their women were to reflect the character of Christ, and a woman’s behavior was to reflect the teachings and leading of her male guardian. This pattern is echoed in Ephesians 5, which calls wives to follow their husbands as they follow Christ, and husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. As a result, the entire community would ultimately reflect God and his principles.
And so, in this instance Paul would be saying, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ. Follow my example.” But he also wants them to understand that, regardless of the surrounding social structure, Christ—and ultimately God—is the one they are meant to reflect.
With these interpretations in mind, we can now address the central question: Does the passage speak about “male headship?”
Does the Passage Speak About “Male Headship”?
The passage speaks about male authority only in the sense of what was socially normal for their culture and society at the time. There is no reason to believe Paul is teaching that “male headship” or male authority over women—neither in his day nor in ours—is a God‑ordained rule, nor does he mention or endorse any specific gender roles.
These ideas are human‑made conclusions that arise from stretching the plain written text beyond what it actually says. They are not found in this passage—anywhere. Paul never says:
- men have authority over women
- women must submit to men
- God created a hierarchy of gender
Those ideas come from reading assumptions into the text. “Male headship” has always been, and will always be, a human construct.
Furthermore, there are other legitimate interpretations of the text and of kephalē besides the claim that God mandates women to live under some general authority of men. To refuse to acknowledge this and instead assert one’s own reading as the only rightful one is to handle God’s word with carelessness and irresponsibility, and it is misleading and unfaithful to those who are seeking God’s truth.
Final Thoughts
Although Paul does not promote male authority, he repeatedly emphasizes unity among believers—male and female—and their oneness in Christ:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. — Gal. 3:28 NIV
Gender differences, which are obvious, offer no support for the idea that men should hold authority over women. “Equal in personhood but different in function” does not imply greater authority of one sex over the other. It simply means that men and women have physical and biological differences. Nothing more.
So, to reiterate Paul’s words: “In the Lord, man is not separate from woman, and woman is not separate from man.” (1 Cor. 11:11). They are united in the Lord. Therefore, one is not obligated to submit to the so‑called “authority” of the other.
Any such authority is assigned from outside the Lord, created within human culture. And the culture of Paul’s day, which treated women as socially inferior, is not how our society functions today. So there is no reason to continue that cultural subordination in the home, the church, or society—although many in the church still do.
But as believers, we should anchor ourselves to what is factually true “in the Lord, ” —what is truth from God’s perspective—rather than burdening and restricting people with traditions that lead to division and strife.
This concludes our examination of whether male headship is biblical. In the next post, I’ll continue with 1 Corinthians 11:4–16 and share my thoughts on heads and head coverings.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In