Andrew Bartlett uses his skills as an international arbitrator to factually expose faulty reasoning in reviews against his book Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light From the Biblical Texts in this short guest post on Michael Bird’s blog. I read Bartlett’s book 2 months ago, and this post on Michael Bird’s blog recalled something important I would like to add to the discussion.
Bartlett agrees with one aspect of what he terms a “soft complementarian” view of Ephesians 5. I agree with Andrew’s conclusion—but for a reason I have not seen anyone else raise, and a reason that agrees with egalitarian exegesis.
(Read the linked guest post above, first! It’s so good. Bartlett’s logic is balm to a brain embattled by regular onslaught of the opposite on this topic.)
Bartlett’s Proposal and Invitation
Andrew believes that “the husband is called to a first responsibility for self-sacrificial service” (63). He argues that Paul is calling the husband to sacrifice first just as Christ did for the church because, he says, the head-body metaphor is asymmetrical (64).
Many egalitarians disagree with an asymmetrical intent in Paul’s use of the head-body metaphor for reasons Bartlett discusses and agrees with in part (47-64).
On page 346 Bartlett invites the following:
“Those egalitarians who deny any special responsibility of the husband in marriage need to explain why in Ephesians 5, to teach how husband and wife should live, Paul uses the asymmetrical metaphor of head and body and the asymmetrical analogy of Christ and the church.”
I will offer an explanation for why the special responsibility to lead in self-sacrifice is not based on gender but predicated on power difference, after sharing another view on why Paul’s metaphor is not asymmetrical in the first place.
Interdependence, Unity, and Power Dynamics
I draw upon the work of Christy Hemphill in a Priscilla Papers article titled “Kephale is a Body Part: Unified Interdependence in Relationship in Ephesians 5” to build my response.
Head and body each need the other to function. The point of Paul’s head-body metaphor is interdependence and unity,(1) yet the power dynamics of first century culture lead to Bartlett’s conclusion that men must “serve first.” This husband-leadership can apply today—but not always. Allow me to explain.
My notes written in the margin of my book follow:
(P. 63) Next to Bartlett’s point calling men to a first responsibility
I wrote “yes, because he has physical and cultural power.”
Here’s what I mean: First century men had much more power. If a wife were to “serve first” by submitting as both are called to do, this would be what was already expected. The imperative to change falls on the one with cultural and physical power who is not expected to be humble and mutual in relationship.
(P. 64) Next to Bartlett’s comparison of asymmetrical relationships and the husband’s call to lead in self-sacrifice
I wrote: “Agreed, but this is not because the head-body metaphor is asymmetrical but because men hold advantage just as Jesus did and should follow Jesus’ example.”
Here’s what I mean: ‘Head-body’ is not asymmetrical in itself, as each part shares mutual need for the other, given the most straightforward understanding of the two (again, see Hemphill).(2)
Then we come to “level two” of applying this head-body metaphor.
For mutual benefit the one with more power must ‘lead’ by laying that power down to level the playing field—by serving the other “first.” If they do not, little changes toward God’s best in the relationship even if the “lower” party walks in submission.(3)
If the one positionally expected to lead does not submit, Ephesians 5:21 will not happen; the head and body will not meet the others’ needs, will not be following the example of Christ:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21(4)
In short, Andrew has the right point for first century application by calling husbands to lead in self-sacrifice, but egalitarians such as Mowczko and Payne are also correct to disagree with how he got there.
I agree with Bartlett’s conclusion but also agree that this is not Paul’s point of his metaphor, which Hemphill expertly explains, and that husbands are not called to lead in this way in every circumstance today.
Power is Often Asymmetrical
The point of the body metaphor is interdependence. Today power dynamics may be different from those of first century for many couples due to the family reputation, wealth, schooling, occupation, strengths, personality, etc, of each in the relationship.
The power dynamics may be more similar to first century’s for many other couples. Different circumstances can engender shifts in who holds prominence as well.
We can transfer Paul’s meaning faithfully by saying that whoever has primacy in a given situation should lower it to make Ephesians 5 mutuality possible. In this case the head and body work together to bless each other and accomplish a purpose.
Bartlett is correct that the men Paul was immediately addressing should “lead” by being the first to choose self-sacrificial love. This does not come innately from the head-body metaphor, because kephale did not mean “authority”—with which Bartlett agrees. The women were culturally expected to submit, which Paul affirms, yet the men were not culturally expected to submit, or to love, in any form whatsoever.
Submission is part of love; mutual submission defines godly relationship. Men and women are both to submit to one another in marriage (yes, that works!), with Christ as leader.
Conclusion
In each couple the person with higher power in a given situation must lead in self-sacrificial love for a head and body to function. There is more going on in Ephesians 5 for which I can recommend books and Mowczko’s blog.(5) This post was addressing one very specific argument in Bartlett’s book Men and Women In Christ: Fresh Light From the Biblical Texts where I found him to miss that one critical piece. Otherwise, his book is 
the Spirit’s fire in logic with intent to bring peace and highlight truth. Do read it—including Appendix 1!
Absolutely read to the end of Appendix 1. What he explains here is brilliant! Shalom 😇
………………………………………………………………………..
(1) “The point of correspondence between marriage and bodies that is explicated in the passage is that both husbands/wives and heads/bodies form a single whole.” Hemphil explains how “metaphors and figurative language are processed and how the shared cognitive context of conceptual metaphors affects understanding of figurative language” such as that used in Eph 5:21–33. “Instead of humoring the attempt to make it a debate over sentence-level syntax and semantics, egalitarian Bible scholars should take up some of the tools provided by the inference model of communication, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics.” Christy Hemphill, “Kephale is a Body Part” (Priscilla Papers Spring 2021), accessed March 12, 2022, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/kephale-body-part-unified-interdependence.
(2) The body needs nourishment from the head; the head needs locomotion and dexterity from the body (to bring it the food, for one). First century Greeks did not widely see the head as leading a person but rather the heart (per Philip Payne in Man and Woman, One in Christ, also Greek philosophical views of the day). The people Paul wrote to would have understood the head and body to need one another. The point is interdependence and unity. See Christy Hemphill’s work in Priscilla Papers, linked in footnote 1.
(3) One exception to this comes in 1 Peter 3:1-7 where Paul is addressing Christian exiles stuck in dangerous political environments under non-Christian authorities (1 Peter 1:1, 6). In this non-ideal culture where many are transitioning to faith in Christ while their spouses are not, Paul teaches women to submit unilaterally so that their unbelieving husbands “may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives” (see 1 Peter 3:1-6). Certainly there can be benefit in this one-way submission, yet equally sure is that Paul is not addressing this to Christian couples as God’s best.
(4) In Greek Ephesians 5:21 starts with the participle “submitting,” as “submitting to one another” falls under the main imperative in verse 18: “Be filled with the Spirit.” I just kept it with the familiar wording for simplicity, but it is quite important that mutual submission is an outflow of being filled with the Spirit. Perhaps that’s the only way it can truly happen.
(5) See Payne regarding Ephesians 5 and kephale. See Mowczko on Ephesians 5 and kephale. For more resources see Part 2 in my Open Letter to the Leaders of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
Coffee with Kristin 
Hi Kristin. First, many thanks for your advocacy for my book – much appreciated, as I have been too busy with other commitments to give it the promotion on social media that would raise its profile.
Thank you also for your thoughtful contribution regarding Ephesians 5. I will need to study it carefully, alongside Christy Hemphill’s article.
Certainly, the historical context (how law and society placed the husband on a high pedestal of power and authority) helps us to appreciate how revolutionary Paul’s teaching was. As in love the Son of God left behind the privileges of heaven and took the lowliest place as the slave of all, giving up his life for his people, so in love the Christian husband should climb down from his high pedestal and take the very lowliest place (as low as a female slave bath attendant, as the analogy in v26 implies), giving himself up in self-sacrifice for his wife. That is the strange, countercultural behavior which would demonstrate to the watching world the love of Christ for his Bride.
I find that there is always more to learn. It was only recently that I fully registered the logical link between 1 Corinthians 7:4 and Genesis 2:24 (cited in 1 Corinthians 6:16, so present to Paul’s mind) – if husband and wife are one flesh, it follows that they have equal authority. You could get this from p25 of Men and Women in Christ, but I didn’t spell it out as clearly as I could have done.
LikeLike
Andrew, thank you for your thoughtful and engaging reply. I have the great joy of reviewing Payne and Huffaker’s Why Can’t Women Do That? for Priscilla Papers (as well as ASICS GT-2000 10 for RunningShoesGuru.com). When these are complete I very much look forward to walking through your reply in more detail. I did write your line above about one flesh leading (logically) to equal authority onto page 25 of my copy. Thank you again for considering what I have here and, especially, for your careful work in your book. Blessings! Your reply totally made my day.
LikeLike
By the way, Andrew, in my review of “Why Can’t…” I am citing your agreement with Payne over the interpretation of “hair” for a head covering in 1 Cor 11, but I invite you to consider a footnote I’m including about Cynthia Westfall’s equally convincing case for “veil.” Her research and textual ties are quite extensive. Honestly, I suspect Paul’s true meaning is a combination of both, using allusions and cultural inferences that the original hearers would have known how to decode the depths of.
LikeLike
Please post your draft footnote here, or send it to me by email, and I’ll be very happy to consider it.
LikeLike
Great idea. My text review of his 1 Corinthians 11 section is below (unless trimmed for length), followed by the footnote which at least offers the concepts and page numbers to check out from Westfall’s masterful work.
…….
The 1 Corinthians 11 discussion around heads and head coverings is deeply contextual and exceedingly difficult for modern readers to understand. Paul was addressing head coverings in the first place because “men and women were participating equally in the life of the New Testament churches” (96). Payne explains various meanings for “head”—including the literal body part—concluding that the covering discussed refers to hair as opposed to a garment such as a veil. He teaches what this means for application (89-107). Andrew Bartlett convincingly agrees with this assessment of hair as the covering,[2] yet I encourage readers to also carefully consider Cynthia Westfall’s extensive research arriving at a “veil” understanding for the covering.[3]
Despite competing conclusions on what Paul was referring to—I suspect it was a combination of both meanings, using allusions and cultural inferences that the original hearers would have known how to decode—the celebratory point is that these scholars agree on the outcome. Verse 11:10 is best translated that a woman “ought to have authority over her own head,” which has been altered to say “a sign/symbol of authority on her head (NIV 1984/ESV) which conveys the opposite of Paul’s intent (101-102). Granted, the Greek is ambiguous here opening up the opportunity for cultural and personal bias to be inserted. However, Payne’s assessment fits the context of the passage and the whole of Scripture without creating apparent contradiction (which placing women under men’s authority actually does). Another key point in 1 Corinthians 11:12 is that both women and men “owe respect to the other as their source” via creation and childbirth respectively (104).
…….
[3] Westfall discusses Roman law & culture, Greek philosophical schools, the sexual behavior of women in Corinth, class distinctions, the symbolism of modesty and rank by veiling, and even head coverings for men, with multiple citations including from Middle-Eastern scholar Kenneth Bailey and Director of the Institute for early Christianity in the Greco-Roman world Bruce Winter (25-43). She points out textual ties between 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Esdras 4:14-17 that shed fascinating light onto Paul’s allusions and the qualification “nevertheless…” in 1 Cor. 11:11 (67). She discusses male control and women’s own self-perceptions related to veiling (96-99). Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender (Baker Academic, 2016) 25-43, 66-70, 96-99.
LikeLike
Hi again, Kristin. Thanks for the extra post. Lots of good stuff in Westfall’s work, but here are some quick reasons against the veils interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16:
1. She relies on Winter’s assertion that “the veiled head was the symbol of the modesty and chastity expected of a married woman”. While Winter’s work is v useful, the evidence does not show that women were veiled from day to day. For Corinth, there is specific evidence to the contrary: see my book, pp128-130.
2. On pages 131-134, I identify six difficulties in interpreting the passage as being concerned with veils. I am not aware that she gives a convincing answer to any of them.
3. Like many others, she says “the focus of the passage is on women”. One can see that this must be a misreading, because it does not match the contents of the text, which contain equal amounts of instruction for both men and women. As I wrote on p126: “Paul’s … first instruction is to men, and this is followed by an instruction to women (vv. 4–6). Next, Paul gives another instruction to men, coupled with an instruction to women (vv. 7–10). Verses 11–12 treat men and women as equals … . Paul then gives a final instruction to women, coupled with a final instruction to men (vv. 13–15). It is simply not the case that Paul’s instructions are mainly directed at the proper behaviour of women. They are directed equally to men and women.”
In my view, her interpretation (like many others, including most English versions), is sent off course by the traditional English mistranslations of vv4-5, which give the impression that Paul is setting up an argument about how women and men are behaving badly in different ways. This then leads to impenetrable difficulties further on in the passage. But Paul is addressing a single custom in verse 4 and 5: men and women are praying and prophesying at Corinth with long hair hanging down, and his argument concludes with a crisp statement that other churches have no SUCH custom (v16). [Not, in the Greek, “no OTHER custom” as in NIV and about 17 English other versions.]
You remark that at 11:10 the Greek is ambiguous. My view is that there is no ambiguity. I suppose if one took the verse out of context one could debate whether Paul means that a woman has authority over her own (physical) head or over her husband. But only the former fits into Paul’s train of reasoning. The translation in ESV and many other versions (“symbol of” authority, or “sign of” authority) is not dependent on resolving an ambiguity: it is a creative invention which adds words and an extra thought which are not present in the text. No English translation contained this before 1881, when it was introduced in the Revised Version.
LikeLike
Andrew, I have pored over your reply and have come to the following thesis followed by point-to point reply: Since loose hair is understood to signal immorality (1 Cor 11:5-6, 13; MWinChrist, 132), I believe “covering” refers to a woman’s choice of a veil OR to wear no veil but tie hair up. Either one would effectively “cover” her head, and she ought to have authority (v 10) to decide. This is entirely reasonable considering the non-uniform environment of converging opinions and customs, as you note (fn30, p. 129). The known factor was that loose hair was not acceptable. In this case vv. 14-15 do indeed make sense: to those arguing that a veil is necessary (as some groups did) Paul says that her hair is her covering. Thus women choosing a veil were acceptable as were women with no veil but who had hair up. The non-specified use of “covering” as well as Paul not using the word for “veil” makes complete sense in light of the multitudinous factors influencing the incipient church.
1. I respect your caution that the evidence does not show that women were veiled from day to day. I note your comment in fn 30 on page 129 that “there is a general issue of inferring more uniformity from historical evidence than is really justified.” You follow this with examples of some of the cultural, religious and sociological variability in the Corinthian church. The NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible also notes that “Romans covered their heads for worship but Greeks uncovered them” (fn 1 Cor 11:3, 4).
2. Just because Paul doesn’t specifically mention veils, this does not rule them out given the readers’ lived understanding of what was being addressed. You make good point about men and women’s coverings in pagan offerings.
KEY HERE is VERSE 10 ((4) on p. 132): The woman should have authority over her own head. Since loose hair is understood to signal immorality, I believe Paul refers to her choice of veil or no veil with hair up, given the non-uniform environment of converging opinions and customs, as you note. In this case vv. `4-15 do indeed make sense because to those arguing that a veil is necessary (as some groups did) Paul says that her hair is her covering. Thus women choosing a veil were acceptable as were women with no veil but who had hair up.
3. I agree with you that the passage discusses men and women; Westfall states that “the issue in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is primarily the proper dress code for women and men when they pray or prophesy in the house churches (26),” though she could put a primary focus on women at another point (in her book or in the passage). I also agree that no SUCH custom correctly relays the Greek text. Verses 5-6 direct a woman’s head be covered. I believe that this covering can be hair up or a veil—with women having authority to decide (v 10).
4. Good point. “Ambiguous” was not the best word, and I did not ponder it long enough for a better one or longer description. Yes, the ESV et al. add to the text, pulling off “epi” as being “upon” rather than “on” but then completely adding “symbol of” to engineer the text per particular motive. Thank you; it is a wonderful fact to know that it was not thus translated until 1881.
Thank you for this prompt to look into my idea further and for your specific page numbers to reference. (I have lent your book out to a local attorney, btw, but I was able to access it to write this reply.) What do you think?! This conversation is an example of my deepest joy.
LikeLike
Hi Kristin.
I think we are in agreement that, in Corinth, long hair hanging down hinted at availability for sexual immorality. I also agree that for a woman in Corinth, in theory, a solution for this could be either (1) hiding her hair under a garment or (2) putting up her hair. But this suggestion does not seem to fit what Paul writes.
Paul starts off by addressing a single custom in verses 4 and 5: men and women are praying and prophesying at Corinth with long hair hanging down, which in Corinthian culture gives wrong signals. This needs to be remedied for both men and women. But the same remedy won’t do for both, so he states the remedies separately for women and for men.
If a woman doesn’t “katakaluptetai” (v6), then another remedy would be for her to have her long hair cut off, but that won’t work because it would look as if she were being shamed for adultery, so she must “katakaluptesthō” (same verb, katakaluptō). This is Paul’s remedy for the woman. This way, she will still have her glorious long hair (v15).
In contrast, a man should not “katakaluptesthai” (v7, same verb again). Instead, he should have his hair cut short (v14).
Your suggestion is that “katakaluptesthō” ambiguously instructs two different remedies, one being covering hair with a garment and the other being putting hair up.
Here are two reasons why it doesn’t fit:
1. If so, that would mean that in v7 Paul is writing ambiguously about what a man should not do, leaving it unclear whether a man should not cover his hair with a garment, or whether a man should not put his long hair up, or maybe both. That would be a clumsy, even thoughtless, use of language. If someone is going to forbid something, they need to say clearly what it is that they are forbidding.
2. In addition, only one of the two suggested meanings for katakaluptō makes sense in the cultural setting:
• Paul instructs men not to put up their long hair (v7, “katakaluptesthai”), essentially because that would be to adopt what would be seen in Corinth as an effeminate hairstyle, and so reject God’s creation purpose for men and women (vv7-9, explained in my book at p146-148).
• It doesn’t make cultural sense for Paul to instruct men not to cover their hair with a garment. For a man to cover his head during worship was not seen as disgraceful. On the contrary, among Jews, it was mandatory for the High Priest to wear a turban to carry out his priestly duties, and the other priests were required to wear caps (Exod 28:4, 37-41; 29:6-9; 39:28); and Romans covered their heads when making a religious offering. (I know some commentators have proposed possible reasons why Paul might be troubled by men covering their heads, but the proposals don’t really work. See further p130-132.)
LikeLike
Yes, absolutely, Andrew, I agree with what you explain here. I agree so much as to insist that since the only culturally relevant meaning for katakaluptō when talking about men meant “hair,” that it meant hair when taking about men. Paul would not have had to be specific because everyone shared a basic understanding that a cap or turban was acceptable. They knew what he meant by a word that had more ambiguity when applied to women.
For women, there was more contention. Everyone knew a veil would be an appropriate covering for women, but Paul had to add specific language about hair being her covering so that the faction(s) trying to enforce mandatory veiling of women would know that hair (tied up), too, was given to her for a covering. A woman ought to exercise authority over her own head—to cover it and to decide which covering: veil or hair up.
There was convergence of many ideas and traditions, but there was also some shared understanding. The Corinthians would have known what Paul meant by a word applied to men and women with similar meaning yet different nuance. Context matters so much.
I have not yet seen sufficient evidence or explanation to convince me that Dr. Westfall was so mistaken in her research and reasoning on 1 Corinthians 11 that her conclusion was entirely false. It seems much more reasonable that she explains “half” of the disagreement over women’s coverings, and you and Philip detail the other “half.”
I have an example of nuanced meaning depending on contextual understanding that I’m thinking of that I’ll put in another comment.
Thank you for the continued dialogue. If anyone will be able to convince me of something, I believe that would be you (and I’m willing to be persuaded with sufficient evidence), but I so enjoy the challenge to think deeper.
LikeLike
Contextually Relevant Shared Understanding:
Imagine a scenario where my family is painting a building on a 70 degree day. My son says “I’m going to go put a coat on.” Everyone who is there knows he means a coat of paint. The boy goes shirtless in 50 degree weather. It’s way too hot for him to want to wear a coat while working.
My daughter with fair skin comes outside and says, “I’m going to put a coat on.” I know she means a jacket because she doesn’t want a sun burn, and she is going to be washing the car; she never paints because she is allergic to something in paint.
Later in the day a storm is coming through, and the temp is dropping. I ask how the paint job is coming, and my son says, “Good. I’m going to go put a coat on.” Everyone there knows he’s getting cold and wants a jacket, and knows he won’t paint now since it looks like rain is coming.
His statement was the exact same though. Both kids said the same thing, but it meant something different each time that those present would have understood. Someone reading dialogue-only in 2000 years might insist they meant the exact same thing each time—it’s the same word and even the same phrase—with much research into all three possibilities, while those present knew what was meant each time.
Each body of research would be partially correct—except for the one from a company vested in painting tables that added to it with “I’m going to go put a coat on the table” because they wanted to argue that the table was being painted… which served their own interests. ([Clears throat], “symbol of auhority on her head” translators, I’m lookin’ at you.)
LikeLike
Your suggestion is: in the case of women in v6, the verb katakaluptō refers to either putting hair up or wearing a garment over the head (which women should do), whereas in the case of men in v7 it refers only to putting hair up (which men should not do). So, for men, Paul is not intending to prohibit a garment over the head.
I do understand how you say that your suggestion is able to fit into various parts of the passage.
In addition, I agree that it is possible for a word to have one meaning in one sentence and a different meaning in the very next sentence.
However, it is pretty unusual, so needs good supporting evidence from the context, especially the immediate literary context (for example, where the flow of thought shows that it is a deliberate word-play).
Your “coat” example highlights the difficulty. For illustration, you have instinctively chosen a situation with heightened features: (1) it involves being personally present with other people whom you know extremely well; (2) the two meanings of “coat”, though conceptually related, are radically different in practical terms (a layer of paint, a layer of clothing). In such a situation, the listener easily recognizes the use of the radically different meanings.
The case of 1 Cor 11:6-7 is more difficult to analyse in that way because (1) it is a written text, not a situation where the listeners are present with the speaker, and (2) the two suggested meanings, so far from being radically different, are said to overlap. You are suggesting a two-fold meaning in one sentence (two ways of controlling hair), and in the next sentence one half of the two-fold meaning, the other half being definitely excluded (but only by implication from cultural knowledge).
Your reasons for the suggestion, if I understand correctly, are not taken from the literary context (the flow of Paul’s argument) but are inferences from general historical evidence not specific to the situation Paul was addressing. That makes your suggestion hard to establish definitively (especially when, as I see it, the historical evidence has been used to arrive at conclusions that are more specific than it really warrants).
Thank you for our enjoyable conversation. I will continue mulling.
LikeLike
Thank you for considering this possibility. I appreciate how you both understand what I was getting at and state it in direct terms (helps me pin it down 📌) followed by analysis. I’ve started a document to present this possibility in article form. Do I have your permission to cite you from this comments discussion? If not, I’ll respect that. You bring up and present helpful aspects to consider.
In the end, I do think that we too often analyze Scriptural texts as modern works of literature rather than as letters written between people who knew eachother well and were deeply embedded in shared cultural understanding (hello First Timothy!), leaving anachronistic, cross cultural analyses hard to establish definitively. My suggestion falls in this category yet as one that attempts to take all of what we know of first century Corinth into consideration. Perhaps my dual hair/veil intended inference (for women) is the anecdote to “conclusions that are more specific than [historical evidence] really warrants.”
Will you be at Atlanta in August? I’d love to say “hello”!
LikeLike
Happy to be quoted.
No plan for Atlanta at present, but if you send me an email I could reply with something on Gal 3:28 that you may find of interest.
LikeLike
Thank you for the offer. I emailed you at clerks@crown…
LikeLike