1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that the head [kephale strongs 2776] of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Regarding this verse the TDNT states [Scripture quotations from the NWT added]:
In 1 C.11:3, in relation to the question of the veiling of women in divine service, Paul says [the above]
For a man should not have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory, but the woman is man’s glory. (1 Corinthians 11:7)
From 11:7 we learn that to the direct subjection of the man to Christ corresponds the fact that the man is [God’s image and glory], and to the position of man as kephale [head] of the gune [woman] corresponds the fact that she is the [glory of the man. Image and glory] have here the sense of image and reflection; this is fixed by the allusion to Gn. 1:27. The same point emerges from v. 8f., where the being of woman as glory, and indirectly of man as [image and glory,] is explained by the fact that the origin and raison d’ etre of woman are to be found in man.
For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. (1 Corinthians 11:8)
Hence man is the image and reflection of God to the degree that in his created being he points directly to God as Creator. Woman is the reflection of man to the degree that in her created being she points to man, and only with and through him to God. In this relation of man and woman we are dealing with the very foundations of their creaturehood. In formal terms, we have a determination of their being and not just of the mode of their historical manifestation. This may be seen from the reference to Adam in v. 7 ff., from the reference to the Christian life in the appendix in v. 11 f.,
Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. (1 Corinthians 11:11)
and from the reference to the mode of historical existence in v. 12. In relation to this we read:
For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. (1 Corinthians 11:12)
So that in the Lord neither is without the other, but each is referred to the other, and through him to the Kurios [Lord.]
Not merely as a Christian, nor historically, but ontologically and by nature woman lives of man and for him. If this is true, the use of kephale rather than Kurios in v. 3 is not accidental. It is not that Paul is, as it were, individualizing the kephale-soma [head-body] concept of Gnosticism. He is using the term kephale as it is familiar to him, and in respect of one element at least its root is in the LXX. Kephale implies one who stands over another in the sense of being the ground of his being. Paul could have used arche if there had not been a closer personal relationship in kephale. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 3 pg. 679)
From the above statements it would appear that Paul’s argument in verse 3 is that woman comes from man, man comes from Christ, Christ comes from God. In discussing the Septuagint usage of the word this dictionary states:
“The implied element of what is superior or determinative is expressed in the LXX along with the sense of man or person. Kephale is used for the head or ruler of a society. At Dt. 28:13 the antithesis kephale/soma is an obvious starting-point for this sense.
Jehovah will make you the head, and not the tail; and you will be on top, and not on the bottom, if you keep obeying the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you today to observe and to do. (Deuteronomy 28:13)
To be sure, there is no express reference to Israel as the kephale over others. But v. 13 in comparison with v. 43 f. shows that headship over someone is at issue:
The foreign resident who is in your midst will keep ascending higher and higher over you, while you yourself will keep descending lower and lower. (Deuteronomy 28:43)
Apart from the antithesis kephale/soma, kephale is used for head, ruler, leader of others or of a society at Ju. 10:18:
The people and the princes of Gilʹe·ad said to one another: “Who will take the lead in fighting against the Amʹmon·ites? Let him become the chief over all the inhabitants of Gilʹe·ad.” (Judges 10:18)
(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 3 pg. 675)
The NICNT states:
he metaphor itself is often understood to be hierarchical, setting up structures of authority. But nothing in the passage suggests as much; in fact, the only appearance of the word exousia (“authority”) refers to the woman’s own authority (1Co_11:10). Moreover, the concluding affirmation (1Co_11:11-12) explicitly qualifies the crucial clauses (1Co_11:8-9) so that they will not be understood in this way. Indeed, the metaphorical use of kephalē (“head”) to mean “chief” or “the person of the highest rank” is rare in Greek literature —so much so that, even though the Hebrew word roʾsh sometimes carried this sense, the Greek translators of the LXX, who ordinarily used kephalē to translate roʾsh when the physical “head” was intended, almost never did so when “ruler” was intended, thus indicating that this metaphorical sense is an exceptional usage and not part of the ordinary range of meanings for the Greek word.
Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is “head” as “source,” especially “source of life,” or origin. (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)
There is a tremendous amount of difficulty in determining what Paul found objectionable about what the women were doing. Was is praying without a head covering such as a shawl? Was it doing so with her hair let loose upon her shoulders?
The NICNT concludes:
As with the man’s situation, one must finally admit that we cannot be certain as to particulars. On the basis of what is said twice of the man (1Co_11:4 and 1Co_11:7), it seems more likely that some kind of external covering is involved; nonetheless, the linguistic ties with the LXX and the parallels from pagan ecstasy offer a truly viable alternative in favor of hairstyle. But in either case, her action (1) must have been deliberate, (2) must be understood to bring shame on her “head,” and (3) probably had inherent in it a breakdown in the distinction between the sexes. Thus Paul wants her to return to what is customary, and will so argue in what follows. (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)