HEAD - HEADSHIP

HEAD - HEADSHIP

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Cor. 11:3

 HEAD [kephale]

The distinction between man and woman is only logical, for while man is God's reflection directly, woman is only so indirectly, having her life from man, and for man.

<Headship> From 1 Cor. 11:3. Also see Num. 30:16.  This was a difficult question to deal with, and it was submitted to the apostle. He proceeded first to declare that woman's true position is that of subservience to man. The nature of that subservience he is very careful to indicate. Here, as was his constant habit, the apostle corrected these small matters by setting them in their true relation to great matters, defining the true meaning of the temporal by setting it in relation to the eternal.

-Woman bears the relation to man that man bears to Christ.

-The relation man bears to Christ is the relation Christ bears to God.

If we commence the argument from the highest fact, the relation of Christ to God, we have at once three great facts to keep in mind.

+God is equal with Christ;

+God co-operated with Christ;

+God is the Head of Christ.

Carrying this out, we see that Christ made Himself equal with man for co-operation with man, while yet He is the Head of man. Again, following that argument, the man is equal with the woman in Christ for co-operation with her in Christ while he is yet the head of the woman in Christ.

“These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.” Num. 30:16

This is really a very arresting chapter. At first it may seem to have very little application to our modern civilization. But if it be carefully considered, it will be seen that it consists of a series of enactments based upon a fundamental principle of human society. The chapter is concerned with vows, and principally those of women. Let us state these provisions in other words. The vow of a man is declared to be absolutely binding, from it there is no release. In the case of women this is not so. If a woman dwelling in her father’s house takes a vow upon her, her father has the power to forbid, and so to release her. If he does not, then the vow is binding. In the case of a woman dwelling with her husband, the husband has a like power. If he does not exercise it, then her vow is also binding. In the case of a widow, or one divorced, if her vow is made in her widowhood or while she is divorced, it is absolutely binding. If it was made while she dwelt with her husband, and he forbade it, she is released. If he did not forbid it, then it is binding upon her. Now what did these careful enactments mean? They are of the utmost importance, as they reveal the Divine conception of the necessity for the maintenance of the unity of the family.

 In no family must there be two supreme authorities, and here, as always in the Divine arrangement, the headship is vested in the husband and father. It can easily be seen how, were this otherwise, through religious vows discord and probably disruption in family life would ensue. The measure in which modern society has departed from this ideal, is the measure of its insecurity.