Part 5 - Headship
Headship" (Eph 5:23). Many commentators have expressed their views on the meaning of the word “head” (Eph 5:23). While some interpretations have merit, the evidence underpinning their conclusions is less than convincing, especially when considering the marital consequences that arise in the wake of unwarranted power structures.
Who’s in Charge? A common interpretation sees “head” as defining “who’s in charge” rather than “who God holds accountable”. The Genesis account establishes a line of accountability in the conversation between God and Adam, however, if a marriage begins with the idea that the Husband holds “headship” as authority, then love is defined by the one who wields it. But Paul’s call to mutual submission demands that both husbands and wives understand what love (Agape) means—what it looks and feels like in practice. The clearest example is how Christ submitted to God as his “head.” If we take this example, we don’t find headship expressed as power and authority, but as submission to God as his “head” and submission to Man like a servant. In my experience, theological debates about power structures rarely console a broken marriage. They’re more likely to entrench distorted opinions.
The best evidence of love and respect in a marriage is the fruit it produces in the significant other. Those who hold authoritative views as their own relationships fall apart might do well to consider the source of their convictions.
Creation order as accountability, not hierarchy. Where did the idea of “headship” come from? Is it relevant today? And does it confront our innate tendency toward control and dominance?
Headship (kephale) is best understood as a construct grounded in the creation order. “Head” can mean source—God is the source of Christ, and Man is the source of Woman. This doesn't refer to superiority, but to origin. Eve came from Adam, so God holds Adam accountable for upholding sacrificial love and the salvation of his wife. That’s the biblical pattern of accountability we see in Genesis, and the pattern is expanded upon in Ephesians.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as (in the same way that) Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.
Unfortunately, many commentaries ignore the contextual setting of Ephesians, isolating this passage and weaponising it to demand a one-sided view of submission. This completely misses the point. The culture in Ephesus was one of idol worship, promiscuity, perversion, and patriarchal dominance. Paul’s moral instruction called believers to abandon that corrupt system, not reinforce it with Christian terminology.
Headship is not about who’s in charge—it defines who is first held accountable. When this is confused with power, mutual submission is lost in translation. Adam was not superior to Eve, but he was accountable. God confronted Adam first because Adam was the “head,” the source. That is the biblical model.
Mutual Submission and the Character of Christ. New Testament teaching consistently challenges rigid or liberal interpretations of scripture when they lack context or contradict the nature of God. If headship is about power, then Paul’s instructions on love and respect become irrelevant or even impossible. Worse still, such interpretations offer little help to the realities of marriage today.
The spiritual line of accountability embedded in the word kephale allows for definitions like “authority” or “source,” so long as both flow from and imply accountability to God. This doesn’t grant him power to control—it calls him to Christlike submission and sacrificial love. True authority and submission are inseparable, reciprocal, and grounded in the example of Christ. If headship were redefined as mutual responsibility under God, the debate would lose much of its acrimony.
Authority in marriage mirrors any other spiritual anointing—it is defined by the character of Christ. Jesus' authority was not coercive; it was sacrificial. His “head” was God, yet he didn’t wield power over people to manipulate their response. Instead, he submitted in love and served with humility. That is the model we are to follow.
The Two Contested Definitions of “Head”
Theological debate around kephale typically falls into two camps:
Authority Model: Kephale means authority, requiring submission, predominantly from women to men.
Source Model: Kephale means origin or beginning, with no inherent authority, and no command for hierarchical headship.
Genesis 2:15-17 shows God instructing Adam about not eating from the tree. Adam--not Eve-- received God’s instruction about not eating from the tree. Later, in Genesis 3:9, God confronts Adam, not Eve, after their rebellion. Romans 5:12 confirms that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Why? Because Adam was the source, and therefore the “head” and therefore accountable. There is no scriptural evidence to suggest Adam held superiority over Eve. Such a claim requires inserting a theological preference into the text.
Likewise, Jesus is the head (kephale) of the Church (Eph 1:22), but his authority was not exercised through power. Philippians 2:5-8 describes how Jesus, though equal with God, chose humility. He did not lord his position over others, but submitted in obedience. His headship was recognised because of his character and sacrificial love, not because of hierarchical power.
Authority as Spiritual Recognition, Not Control. Authority, both secular and spiritual, is recognised through different lenses. In biblical terms, authority flows from God, is manifested through the character of Christ, and is exercised through love, humility, and service. We submit not because we are commanded to by human hierarchy, but because we recognise God’s presence. We also submit to authorities such as Elders, ministry gifts and leadership anointing. This is the anointing—the spiritual authority displayed in people through their love, gifts, and service (Acts 9:27). Submission is mutual, because God works through all his people. And all expressions of authority must be weighed by Scripture.
Marriage carries a more intimate expression of care than other leadership roles, but the principle remains. True authority cannot be demanded—it must be recognised. Any environment built on secular constructs of control may function organizationally, but unhelpful and harmful when applied to the intimacy and complexity of marriage.
Authority Is Earned Through Love, Not Claimed by Role. Our submission to Christ is voluntary. Jesus earned it through who he is, what he said, and how he gave his life. The same applies in marriage. Authority is earned through selfless love and submission, not claimed by gender or role.
A man is not granted automatic authority over his wife. He earns her respect by leading with love, just as Christ did. Equally, a wife’s love is fostered by her choice to respect her husband. The biblical principle is simple but profound: love and respect are not transactions, but responses to one another's character.
Men and women are equal in God’s design, with different responsibilities. Biblical equality depends on the presence of free will. Authority cannot be forced. Christlike leadership is characterised by sacrificial love, not hierarchical control. God holds the man accountable for initiating this kind of love, but the response is God’s domain.
Ultimately, submission, love, and respect transcend mere word definitions. For those enduring difficult marriages, nothing is lost in choosing to submit one's will for the sake of gaining another’s love and respect. That is the way of Christ—and that is the way of true headship.
