Yes. Headship was present before sin, when “peace and joy, in perfect submission to the will of Heaven, existed throughout the angelic host” (4SP 316). We don’t know how long this happy state lasted, but it “existed for ages before the entrance of sin” (ibid). We do know that “Lucifer was the covering cherub, the most exalted of the heavenly created beings; he stood nearest the throne of God, and was most closely con-nected and identified with the administration of God’s gov-ernment, most richly endowed with the glory of His majesty and power” (ST, April 28, 1890).
Before the Fall, God’s government was organized and structured. There was a council in which Lucifer was an honored member (GC 669). Lucifer was not a puppet. God gave him power, authority, and command. Before sin Lucifer gave commands and “angels delighted to execute his com-mands” (PP 36), obeying them with “alacrity” (1SP 18). Lu-cifer “began his work of rebellion with the angels under his command” (1SM 222).
Sin did not change this organization in heaven. The de-sertion and rebellion of a third of the angels required a reor-ganization of the angels who remained loyal. This was done at the very start of the war in heaven (Rev 12:7). These loyal
“angels were marshaled in companies, each division with a higher commanding angel at its head” (EW 145). Though re-constituted, the structural arrangement of God’s government remained the same. Despite Satan’s charges, it was not defec-tive and needed no change in its law or its organization.
8. Isn’t headship just an idea of Paul, who was a chauvin-istic misogynist? No. The headship principle is consistently taught throughout Scripture. Peter taught the same princi-ple: “Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your own hus-bands, that, even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they
Section 6: The Headship Principle
observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. … For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror” (1 Pet. 3:1, 2, 5, 6).
9. In Gen. 2:18, Eve is called Adam’s “helper” (ezer), a word often used to describe God; does that mean that Eve was like God to Adam? No. The passage says, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him’ ” (Gen. 2:18). The Hebrew term ezer suggests neither superiority nor inferiority; it sim-ply means one who comes to the aid, help, or assistance of another when help is needed. The fact that God is often our helper doesn’t mean that every helper is a God to us. A helper can be in authority over the person helped, as when a father helps his son with his homework assignment, or under the authority of the person helped, as when a son helps out in his father’s business.
However, the use of the term helper does indicate role differentiation, proving that Eve’s role was not the same as Adam’s role. A helper is not the person primarily responsi-ble for the task. When a father helps his son with the son’s homework, it remains the son’s responsibility to complete his homework and turn it in; likewise, when a son helps his fa-ther in his fafa-ther’s business, the business remains the fafa-ther’s responsibility.
In the case of Adam and Eve, Eve was created to be Ad-am’s helper, implying that the task of governing Planet Earth remained Adam’s responsibility. In other words, Eve was cre-ated for Adam: “Nor was man crecre-ated for the woman, but woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9).
10. In 1 Cor. 11, isn’t Paul talking only about relationships between husbands and wives, and not about relationships between men and women in the church? No. 1 Cor. 11:3 ap-pears in the context of discussing church order, not the fam-ily. The immediate issue was head-covering in church during worship, not anything pertaining to the home. Women were to cover their heads in church to signify being under author-ity, but men were not to cover their heads in church.
11. If Jesus is head of the church (Eph. 1:22), why discuss human headship? Because Jesus, the head of the church, works through human agency:
“Since His ascension Christ has carried forward His work on the earth by chosen ambassadors, through whom He speaks to the children of men and minis-ters to their needs. The great Head of the church su-perintends His work through the instrumentality of men ordained by God to act as His representatives”
(AA 360).
The Chief Shepherd works through human under-shepherds:
“Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serv-ing as overseers, not by compulsion but willserv-ingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away”
(1 Pet. 5:1–4).
“While Christ is the minister in the sanctuary above, he is also, through his delegates, the minister of his church on earth. He speaks … through chosen men, and carries forward his work through them, as when,
Section 6: The Headship Principle
in the days of his humiliation, he moved visibly upon the earth. … From Christ’s ascension to the present day, men ordained of God, deriving their authority from him, have become teachers of the faith. Christ, the True Shepherd, superintends his work through the instrumentality of these under-shepherds. Thus the position of those who labor in word and doctrine becomes very important” (GW 11).
In the presence of Christ as the head of the church, under-shepherds are still needed:
“To Aaron and Hur, assisted by the elders who had been granted a revelation of God’s glory, was given the charge of the people in the absence of Moses. Aaron had long stood side by side with Moses, and Hur was a man who had been entrusted with weighty respon-sibilities. … Today as then men of determination are needed—men who will stand stiffly for the truth at all times and under all circumstances, men who, when they see that others are becoming untrue to principle, will lift their voice in warning against the danger of apostasy” (MS 43, 1907).3
12. Didn’t Ellen White clearly identify Jesus as the only