Jesus, Paul, and the Problem with Male Headship
1 Corinthians 11 is one of the most disputed—and influential—texts in the New Testament. While many gender-related passages in the Bible can be explained through cultural context, 1 Corinthians 11 stands apart. Paul appeals not to culture but to the "created order" to justify what appears to be hierarchical gender roles. Verses 7–8 say:
"A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man..."
In 1994, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology gave new life to the idea of subordination as divinely orchestrated. Using Philippians 2:5–7, he argued that although Jesus was "in very nature God," He did not consider equality with God something to exploit, but “emptied Himself” and “became a servant”. When combined with 1 Corinthians 11, this formed a powerful argument: just as Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, so women are subordinate to men. Gender hierarchy was presented as mirroring the Trinity. This view had women essentially taking on the “role” of Jesus in male-female relationships.
Grudem has since amended his position on the eternal subordination of the Son, recognizing its divergence from orthodox Trinitarian theology. But the damage was done. The concept of "headship" became foundational in many churches. Acts 29, a prominent church planting network, lists the "principle of male headship" as one of its core distinctives. As 1 Corinthians 11:3 says:
"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
Yet the Genesis narrative does not present Adam as Eve’s superior. They are co-rulers over creation. 1 Corinthians 11 appears to reinterpret this dynamic—casting Adam as the head and Eve as his helper. But there are significant problems with this interpretation. Drawing from Lucy Peppiatt’s Women and Worship at Corinth, here are four major issues:
1) The Problem of “Headship”
The Greek word kephalē ("head") is a polymorphous concept—it can mean source, origin, or authority, depending on the context. Heads of rivers are sources. Heads of companies are authorities. Chrysostom warned against applying kephalē uniformly across the relationships in 1 Corinthians 11:3. If Paul wanted to illustrate hierarchy, Chrysostom said, he could’ve used servant-master language, which would be more explicit.
Christian doctrine affirms that the Father and Son are of the same substance—one in essence. If the Father is Christ's head, but they are equal in divinity, then "head" here cannot mean authority in the way man might be said to have authority over woman. If it did, it would imply a Trinitarian hierarchy that undermines the unity of God.
Chrysostom, along with Cyril of Alexandria, also warned that human analogies must not be equated with divine realities. Even if the Son submits to the Father in obedience, His submission is radically unlike human submission. To claim that men can provide women, in their “obedience”, the same liberty and joy that Christ experiences in His “obedience” to the Father is not just misguided—it’s dangerously arrogant.
2) The Problem of "Created Order"
Some argue that because Adam was created before Eve, she was made for him and thus subordinate. But this misunderstands the literary rhythm of Genesis. Each act of creation builds upon the last in complexity and purpose. Darkness precedes light, land precedes vegetation, and the stars come after the sky. Eve being created last does not imply inferiority—it suggests culmination.
If we interpret every creative act as increasingly advanced—except for Eve—then we ignore the biblical pattern. Eve is not a subordinate created after Adam. She is the climax of God’s creation.
3) The Problem with Corinthian Male Leadership
Ben Witherington III argues that the real issue in Corinth wasn’t the women—it was the elite Gentile men. Much of Paul's letter critiques these men for abusing power: monopolizing the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17–34), flaunting spiritual gifts (chapters 12–13), and speaking in tongues to impress (chapter 14). It is unlikely Paul was addressing a group of combative or abusive women in the church in 1 Corinthians 11 or 14.
Corinthian culture was steeped in misogyny. As Lucy Peppiatt notes, women—especially poor women—were seen as inherently inferior. It’s more likely that Paul is confronting powerful men who are enforcing arbitrary standards on women, such as mandatory head coverings during worship.
So why does Paul seem to tell women to submit to these men?
4) The Problem of Misreading Paul’s Rhetoric
Paul often quotes his opponents’ views before dismantling them—without always saying so explicitly. Douglas Campbell and others note that this rhetorical strategy (used in 1 Corinthians 6:12, 7:1, 8:1, 10:23, and 15:12) permeates Paul’s letters. It is a type of argumentation called reductio ad absurdum. Paul repeats something outrageous to expose its absurdity.
Take 1 Corinthians 11:5:
"Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved."
Paul isn’t endorsing this. He’s echoing the overreactions of some Corinthian men to highlight their inconsistency. He is essentially saying, “If you think it's so disgraceful for a woman to pray without a head covering, then why not just shave her head too?” In the ancient world, a shaved head could symbolize public shame or even association with prostitution. Paul uses this extreme example to show the absurdity of their logic. Later, he reminds them, "we have no such custom" (v. 16), effectively shutting down the argument.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, Paul says:
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."
But then comes the rhetorical dagger:
"Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (v. 36)
Paul is not laying down divine instructions to silence women. He’s quoting the Corinthian men—then challenging their presumption that their restrictive stance is divinely authorized. This interpretation aligns more closely with Paul’s affirmation of women prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5) and his ministry partnerships with female leaders like Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia.
Conclusion
1 Corinthians 11 does not present a divine blueprint for gender hierarchy. Nor does it reinterpret the creation narrative to establish male authority over women. Instead, it offers a snapshot of a church struggling with power, status, and identity. Paul responds not by codifying hierarchy, but by using irony, rebuttal, and rhetorical force to challenge the misuse of theology. He affirms women’s active roles in worship—encouraging them to prophesy, which in the early church was considered the highest form of spiritual instruction.
The church was never meant to mirror human hierarchy. It was meant to mirror Christ—who consistently elevated the lowly, welcomed the marginalized, and made co-heirs of those the world deemed subordinate.
Bibliography
Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul's Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians. T&T Clark, 2015.
Witherington, Ben. Women and the Genesis of Christianity. Baker Academic, 2008.
Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Epistle to the Corinthians. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 12.
Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel of John. The Fathers of the Church, 1989.