Susanna Krizo

Here are two excerpts from my book which deal with the question of the subjection of the Son to the Father and how it relates to the assumed subjection of the woman to the man. (I didn’t feel like re-writing the text again, which is why is so great to have the copyright to an already written text!)

Chapter 8
Kephale is given the meaning “authority over” in 1 Corinthians 11:3 in order to create a hierarchy in which the man rules over the woman. But although complementarism models the woman’s subjection after the Son’s assumed subjection to the Father, in the early church, as the inferiority of the woman was incorporated into theology, the subjection of the woman became the model for the subjection of the Son in the many heresies that challenged the church. Thus we find that in Arian theology, Christ owes thank to humans for He was believed to have been made for them.

“First, the Son appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than we for Him; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for us; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. ‘For the man,’ says Scripture, ‘was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.’ Therefore, as ‘the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man,’ so we are made God’s image and to His glory; but the Son is our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being that we might be; but God’s Word was made, as you must hold, not that He might be; but as an instrument for our need, so that not we from Him, but He is constituted from our need.”

The early church theologians of the patristic era refused to make the Son subject to the Father although they subjected the woman to the man. Chrysostom, for example, explicitly refuted the heresy of the Son’s inferiority and subjection, which was modeled after the subjection of the woman.

“But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? “Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, “so also the Father, Christ.” Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. “For the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever admit this?”

Chrysostom argued that it was impossible for kephale to mean “authority over,” for had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection he would have used the example of a slave and a master instead of marriage. Neither did Chrysostom agree with those who found a similarity between 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, for if we were to understand kephale in the same way in both, “extreme absurdity will result.” Therefore he argued that we should reject “these particulars,” and “accept the notion of a perfect union, and the first principle,” and even here recognize that which is “too high for us and suitable to the Godhead, for both the union is surer and the beginning more honorable.”

Gregory of Nazianzen called the subjection of the Son to the Father “a new theology,” indicating that it was not part of the apostolic tradition.

“For as these low earthly minds make the Son subject to the Father, so again is the rank of the Spirit made inferior to that of the Son, until both God and created life are insulted by the new Theology. No, my friends, there is nothing servile in the Trinity, nothing created, nothing accidental, as I have heard one of the wise say. ”

Yet, Thomas R. Schreiner maintains in his essay Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity that there is subordination within the Trinity, because “the Son has a different function or role from the Father,” and because “the Son willingly submits Himself to the Father’s authority.” This subordination to authority is seen in that the “Father commands and sends; the Son obeys and comes into the world to die for our sins.” Schreiner attempts to prove the subordination of the Son from 1 Corinthians 15:28, but by doing so He contradicts himself, “It is clear that this subjection of the Son to the Father is after his earthly ministry, so how anyone can say that there is no hint of a difference or order or role within the Trinity is difficult to see.” But if the subjection of the Son begins after his earthly ministry, how could the Son have been subject to the Father before his incarnation? Because complementarists give kephale the meaning “authority over” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, they create a triple subjection of the Son, which resembles the twofold of the woman found in the Summa, for if the Son was subject to the Father from the beginning, his subjection became less voluntary after His incarnation and will become even less voluntary after He delivers the kingdom to the Father. But such a concept is not only absurd, it is impossible, for how can the Son be forced into subjection? Tertullian rejected the subjection of the Son due to the impossibility of the proposition.

“Since therefore he [Marcion] is obliged to acknowledge that the God whom he does not deny is the great Supreme, it is inadmissible that he should predicate of the Supreme Being such a diminution as should subject Him to another Supreme Being, for He cases (to be Supreme), if He becomes subject to any. Besides, it is not the characteristic of God to cease from any attribute of His divinity – say, from His supremacy. ”
…

Chapter 9
The twofold subjection of Thomas Aquinas altered the translation and interpretation of 1 Corinthians perhaps more than any other chapter in the Bible; consequently it is considered one of the most difficult chapters to interpret. Thomas R. Schreiner writes in his essay Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity, ”The difficulties with this text could lead one to say that it should not be used to establish any doctrine or teaching on the role relationship of men and women.” Although he is correct in rejecting the proposition that we should not use the chapter, he rejects also the interpretation of the chapter which removes the inherent difficulties.

As the woman’s subjection as a created order was challenged, 1 Corinthians 11 was re-interpreted to reflect the change, or, rather, the return to the theology of the early church. Instead of rule and submission, the text was viewed as teaching the interdependency of men and women based on their equality as a created order. Because 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the cornerstones of complementarian theology, the re-interpretation has not been accepted largely due to the false interpretation of the word kephale found in verse 3.

“Another argument used for the translation “source” in 1 Corinthians 11.3 is that Paul says woman came from man in verse 11:8, and this obviously suggests the idea of source. Surely this understanding of verse 8 is correct, but verse 8 does not explicate the meaning of head in verse 3. Instead, Paul uses this argument from source to prove that woman is the glory of man.”

Schreiner neglects the connection of eikoon (“image”) and kephale (“head”) in verse 7 because he gives kephale the incorrect meaning “authority over.” “A beginning” and “a first principle,” the meanings Chrysostom gave kephale in his homily are synonymous to an archetype of which the other person is an image, “for images are the forms of their archetypes.” According to Origen, “The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God.” Gregory of Nyssa explained, “[T]hen all the Cause beyond, which is God over all, is found through Our Lord, Who is the Cause of all things; nor, indeed, is it possible to gain an exact knowledge of the Archetypal Good, except as it appears in the (visible) image of that invisible.” In other words, the archetype is the source of the image, which possesses the characteristics of its source.

According to Gregory of Nazianzen, the same attributes that are found in the archetype must also be found in the image. However, the image is not an identical copy of the archetype, as described by Theorodet (d. 458) in a dialogue between Eranistes and Orthodoxus.

Eran.—The type must have the character of the archetype.
Orth.—Is man called an image of God?
Eran.—Man is not an image of God, but was made in the image of God.
Orth.—Listen then to the Apostle. He says: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”
Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God.
Orth.—According to your argument then he must needs have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and have been uncreate, uncompounded, and infinite. He ought in like manner to have been able to create out of the non existent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labour, in addition to this to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger, and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype.
Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect.
Orth.—Though truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide interval from the reality.
Eran.—Agreed.
Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine Apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says “Who is the image of the invisible God?”
Eran.—What then; has not the Son all the qualities of the Father?
Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten.
Eran.—If He were He would not be Son.
Orth.—Then does not what I said hold good; the image has not all the qualities of the archetype?
Eran.—True

A copy is called a “shadow” in the New Testament (Heb. 8:5). For example, the Law was a shadow of Christ, whom Paul portrays as the body or true substance (Col. 2:17). A shadow is the opposite of an image (Heb. 10:1) for whereas the copy is temporary and is destroyed when the substance is provided (Heb. 10:9) an image co-exists with the archetype, its source. Thus, as the image of the Father, the Son is similar to the Father in essence and power, but He is not the identical to the Father, for He is not unbegotten. The man is in the image of God in the inner person, but he is enclosed in a body, whereas God is a spirit. The woman is also in the image of God in the inner person for she is a human being, but her body is in the image of the first man, wherefore it is different from his.

Hi everyone,
Curious as to whom to believe – egalitarians or complementarists – I begun a research four years ago. I found that despite all the fancy rhetoric and emotional appeals, modern complementarists uphold a reversed theology compared to the one which begun at the end of the second century when Gen 3.16 became the source of the woman’s subjection. By the fourth century the belief in the sole guilt of Eve and female subjection as a punishment for her sin had become a permanent part of traditional theology. Jerome would immortalize it for the generations to come in the Vulgate by his change of Gen 3.16 from “Your turning shall be to the man” into “Under the man’s authority will you be.” During the Millennium of the Vulgate few knew of the change and the Reformers did not do much better with their choice of “desire” which fueled the witch craze and is still used to argue that women desire to rule over men. Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom all agreed: the woman was created equal to the man and it was only after sin that the woman was subjected to the man. Due to the heavy emphasis on virginity and celibacy, as a replacement for a martyr’s death, Jerome argued that a virgin and continent wife was equal to the man, while the sexually active married woman was subject and inferior to the man. Already Cyprian (middle third century) had argued the same.
For eleven centuries Gen 2.18-24 was considered to teach equality, but with the rise of Scholasticism and the synthesis of Aristotle’s philosophy and neo-Platonic Augustinianism, the creation account was changed. In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas argued in Summa Theologica that the woman is a misbegotten male who lacks the man’s reason, wherefore she must be ruled by the man. He also considered Gen 3.16, which he considered servile in nature, a fitting punishment for the woman’s sin. Thomas’s twofold subjection, based on Aristotle’s philosophy and Jerome’s mistranslation of Gen 3.16, was absorbed by Scholastic theology and although the reformers rejected Scholasticism, their followers quickly reverted to Scholastic logic (Melanchton changed Luther’s theology and Beza Calvin’s) in an effort to support their reformed theology in the face of Catholic opposition. Thus the twofold subjection was not challenged until Aristotle fell from grace at the end of the nineteenth century with the rise of modern biology, sociology and psychology. The inferior woman disappeared from secular thinking and the church dropped the term although they continued to uphold the dogma which was based on the woman’s assumed inferiority. In 1980’s egalitarians successfully challenged the old dogma of Gen 3.16 being God’s commandment which opened the door for the full rejection of the reversed complementarist theology.
To summarize:
1. The first 150 years: the church taught the full equality of all humans
2. 3rd to 13th century: Gen 3.16 becomes the source of the woman’s subjection
3. 13th- 20th century: Gen 2.18-24 and Gen 3.16 teaches female subjection
4. 1980- : Gen 2.18-24 is the source of the woman’s subjection, Gen 3.16 is a consequence of sin

I found that kephale (head), hypotasso (submit), kurios (lord) and hypoakouo (obey) were all Latinized as a result of the era of the Vulgate when theology was thought and written in Latin. Kephale, for example, was given the meaning “ruler” in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa, but I could not find it earlier in Christological writings. The following writers all gave the word the meaning “beginning.”

Ignatius, disciple of John the Apostle (30-107)
Irenaues (ca 180)
Tertullian (145-200)
Clement of Alexandria (153-217)
Origen (185-254)
Cyprian (200-258)
Novatian (210-280)
Arnobius (297-303)
Athanasius (298-373)
St. Basil (329-379)
Gregory of Nazianzen (329-389)
St Ambrose (340-397)
Rufinus (344-408)
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (359)
Four discourses against the Arians (356-360)
Hilary of Potiers (died 367)
John Chrysostom (347-407)
Aurelius Augustine (354-430)
Socrates Scholasticus (born 379)
Leo the Great (Ca. 390- 461)

The majority of the writers are from the fourth century because most of what we have left from the early church is from the High Patristic era when the church was safe from persecution. The most enlightening aspect of the usage of kephale was Augustine who used the word frequently (I found about 350 pages worth of quotes from his writings). When writing about men and women, he gave the word the meaning “ruler,” but when he wrote about Christ and the Church, he gave the word the meaning “literal head” or “beginning.” When the factor that Augustine synthesized Neo-Platonism with his theology is taken into consideration, it becomes evident that he used Plato’s soul-body dichotomy to explain the relationship between men and women, but he would not compromise his Christology with such a departure from orthodox Christianity. He was also careful to point out that the man’s rule began after sin and did not belong to original creation.
Grudem claims in the Appendix found in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” that the Septuagint proves that kephale meant ruler in the third century BC. I checked every instance in which rosh is translated with kephale and found his claim to be false. The Septuagint uses overwhelmingly words such as archos (“leader”), arche (“beginning,” “ruler”) and hegeoumai (“leader”) when the meaning “ruler” is needed in the text. Kephale is used when the context speaks of a literal head, “a beginning,” “summing up” or the extreme end of an object. His other proof was Hermas, in which kephale tou oikou is found, and although Grudem uses it as an early proof, the term is not found in Greek writings, for the correct Greek term is oikodespoteo. Incidentally Hermas was an Ebionite, a Hebrew Christian, and thus he did not choose the right idiom in his writing, for “head of household” in Hebrew becomes kephale tou oikou when translated literally into Greek. The strongest proof Grudem offers is from Plato, but as I argue in my book, that a fourth-century BC Greek philosopher gave the word the implicit meaning “ruler” does not mean that a first-century theologian would give the word the explicit meaning “ruler.” As already noted, this meaning, when relating to men and women, was popularized by Augustine who used Plato’s arguments in his theology.
I found that most of the arguments used by Grudem & co in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” are based on contradictions, paradoxes and false exegesis because they wish to uphold a theology which is based on Thomas Aquinas’s Scholasticism, while trying to, at the same time, reject the foundation. If anyone is interested, the full research is available in book form, “When Dogmas Die,” published by Creation House, Strang Communications. I am also happy to share more with you here.

Susanna Krizo

Validation Check — Susanna Krizo's Comment (#7973)

Reviewed by: Lucy (AI Research Assistant) Date: 2026-04-03

This validation assesses the historical and scholarly claims made by Susanna Krizo in comment #7973. Each major claim is evaluated for accuracy.

1. Jerome's Vulgate changed Genesis 3:16 from "turning" to "under the man's authority"

CONFIRMED. The Vulgate reads "sub viri potestate eris" ("under the power/authority of the man you will be"). The earlier Greek Septuagint (LXX) used apostrophē ("turning"), and nearly all ancient versions (Syriac Peshitta, Samaritan Pentateuch, Old Latin, etc.) rendered Hebrew teshuqah as "turning," not "desire" or "authority." Jerome's translation introduced a significant interpretive shift that influenced Western theology for over a millennium.

2. The Reformers chose "desire" which "fueled the witch craze"

PARTIALLY CONFIRMED. The Reformers did shift to "desire" (Verlangen in Luther's German). The connection to the witch craze is an overstatement — the witch craze had many theological and social drivers — but the Foh interpretation of "desire" as a woman's desire to control her husband (1975) did build on this translation choice. The broader claim that "desire" has been weaponized against women is well-documented.

3. Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom all agreed the woman was created equal and subjected only after sin

CONFIRMED. Augustine explicitly states in De Genesi ad Litteram that the man's rule over the woman began after the fall. Chrysostom similarly argued equality in creation. Jerome's position was more nuanced — he tied a woman's status to her sexual activity (virgins were equal, married women subject) — but the core claim that pre-fall equality was the patristic consensus is accurate.

4. Thomas Aquinas argued the woman is a "misbegotten male" (mas occasionatus)

CONFIRMED. In Summa Theologica I, Q.92, Art.1, Aquinas follows Aristotle's biological theory that the female results from a defect in the active generative power. He uses the phrase femina est mas occasionatus. However, Aquinas also qualifies this — he says the female is intended by nature for the work of generation, so she is not defective in that broader sense. Krizo's summary is accurate but could note the qualification.

5. Krizo's list of 20 patristic writers who gave kephale the meaning "beginning" (not "ruler")

MOSTLY CONFIRMED, WITH NUANCE. The list includes major figures (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine). Scholarship by Cervin, Payne, and Kroeger supports that most patristic writers understood kephale as "source/origin/beginning" in Christological contexts. However, the picture is not as clean as Krizo presents — some of these writers (particularly Chrysostom and Augustine) used "source" in Christological contexts but "authority" in gender contexts. The claim is strongest for the Christological usage and weaker as a blanket statement about all contexts.

6. Augustine used kephale as "ruler" for men/women but "beginning" for Christ/Church

CONFIRMED. This is one of Krizo's strongest observations. Augustine's dual usage is well-documented — he applied Platonic soul/body hierarchy to gender relations while preserving orthodox Christology. This inconsistency supports the egalitarian argument that the "authority" meaning was imported from philosophy, not from the Greek word itself.

7. Grudem's Septuagint claim about kephale meaning "ruler" is false

SUBSTANTIALLY CONFIRMED. Of approximately 180 instances where Hebrew rosh means "leader/ruler," the LXX translators used kephale only about 6-12 times (scholars debate the exact count). They overwhelmingly chose archōn, archē, or hēgoumenos instead. Payne calls this "compelling evidence that the majority of LXX translators did not regard kephale as appropriate to convey the meaning 'leader.'" Grudem's counter-argument relies on the Liddell-Scott editor's 1997 letter, but this is disputed by other lexicographers.

8. Grudem's use of Hermas as early proof of kephale = "ruler"

CONFIRMED. Shepherd of Hermas does use kephale tou oikou, but as Krizo notes, Hermas was likely a Jewish Christian writing in Greek, and the phrase appears to be a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom. Standard Greek for "head of household" was oikodespotēs. This is a recognized weakness in Grudem's evidence.

9. Krizo's four-period historical summary

BROADLY ACCURATE. The periodization is simplified but defensible: - (1) First 150 years: general equality taught — Reasonable, though evidence from this period is sparse - (2) 3rd-13th century: Gen 3:16 as source of subjection — Confirmed as the dominant trajectory - (3) 13th-20th century: Both Gen 2 and 3 teach subjection — Confirmed, this is the Scholastic synthesis - (4) 1980s onward: Gen 2 as source, Gen 3 as consequence — Confirmed, this is the modern complementarian shift (Piper/Grudem's RBMW, 1991)

10. The book When Dogmas Die (Creation House, Strang Communications)

CONFIRMED. Published January 2009, ISBN 978-1599798653. The book is a real scholarly work that expands on the research described in this comment.

Overall Assessment

8 of 10 claims fully confirmed. 2 partially confirmed with nuance needed.

Susanna Krizo's comment is a remarkably well-researched summary of the historical development of gender theology. Her strongest contributions are: (a) the observation about Augustine's inconsistent use of kephale, (b) the documentation of Jerome's Vulgate shift, and (c) the critique of Grudem's Septuagint evidence. The two areas where nuance is needed are the witch craze connection (overstatement) and the patristic kephale list (accurate for Christological usage but oversimplified for gender contexts).

This comment deserves to be starred as a gem — it provides a historical roadmap that is rare to find in blog comments.