While the lexicons mentioned above do not contain a definition of leader for kephale, this is not the case for New Testament lexicons. [6] Al Wolters, Head as Metaphor,Koers 76.1 (2011) 137-153,142. I think I would also want to ask, given that complementarians repeatedly come back to this text as *the* exegetical and theological foundation for their positionwhat do you think *is* there root issue? This is the case whetherkephaleis interpreted as leader or origin, or if it is interpreted as prominent, another contender for the meaning of kephale(previously mentioned in endnote 1.) Whether I like it or not I think I do exercise spiritual leadership, the only question is whether I am willing to accept that responsibility (something I am gradually learning). Phill, I am not sure why Eph 5.23 is more difficult, since the submission (and note, not the obedience) of wives to husbands is one specific example of the submission of all believers to each otherso it had no dependence on any idea of authority over. The idea conflating head and leadership derives in part from our understanding that the head (brain) is the command centre of the body. Paul commands submission in a general sense and then gives some specific instructions as to how exactly that works out. Mat. It doesnt mean that everyone needs to submit to everyone else in the same way, or that the husband-wife relationship should be entirely symmetrical. When The Hebrew Word For Head Meant Leader In The Hebrew Bible, It Was Usually Not Translated With The Greek Word For Head In The Septuagint.
. 2. Anyway just a few thoughts, hope this is helpful. Ian, 11:3), Jesus Christ (1 Cor. So, I think Margs four reasons are good ones, but ultimately as she herself admits the word itself *can* carry a sense of prominence. . Richard Cervin suggests three reasons for this discrepancy between lexicons of New Testament Greek and other lexicons: I offer several possible reasons, not the least of which is tradition and a male-dominant world-view. The driving force behind that theology, as I encountered it and was taught it, was the preservation of male-female distinctiveness in the face of a society that sought to break down those distinctions. So this already disproves the overall contention (that Paul couldnt use KEPHALE to mean leader because this meaning was not available to him). And please dont misunderstand me, Im not saying I agree with Wayne Grudem etc. Its good that you both see things the same way. 11:11; 2 Kingd. It is however, undeniable that patriarchy has dominated world cultures until recently when western culture (influenced by Christianity) changed this pattern. Even in the Old Testament, God bypassed husbands and fathers and spoke to women directly, or he sent an angel to speak to women. In contrast, anything I read of the egalitarian case always speaks of mutuality. 1:22-23; 4:15-16; 5:23; Col. 1:18-19; 2:9-10; 2:18-19), men (1 Cor. . If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Although I liked many aspects of this article, I wonder how reliable a guide Septuagint usage of Greek is to New Testament meaning. (Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009) 396). The change in the ESV is a recent innovation that I suspect reflects a reaction to the shape of western culture especially as the text is otherwise ambiguous. So it plausible that 1 Corinthians 11:3 also alludes to creation and origins. Do you see a different conclusion reached here? Regarding the Josephus examples, both in the Wars of the Jews, Wolters writes, In the first example he compares the sovereignty of the capital Jerusalem over Judea to that of the head over the body (3.3.5 54), and in the second example he designates Jerusalem directly as the kephaleof the entire nation (4.4.3 261). Wolters, Head as Metaphor, 145. What helped convince me of a complementarian position was actually more to do with same-sex marriage as I began to study the difference between the sexes, and in particular Genesis 1-2, I found it more and more difficult to sustain an egalitarian understanding of ministry. In the New Covenant, however, every redeemed man and woman has access to God, through Jesus, facilitated by the Holy Spirit. [1] However, leader or authority was not a usual meaning of the word in ancient Greek either before or during the first century. John Chrysostom (c. 349 407), Archbishop of Constantinople, was adamant that headdoes not mean leader in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through Him have been formed anew unto Him unto immortality through sanctification in the Spirit. It seems that most of the translators of the Septuagint knew that kephaledoes not usually mean leader, ruler, or one in authority. The Mickelsens count 8 instances. To imagine that head in other cultures and languages does not have the same connotation requires a disciplined leap of the imagination, and this is not easy for the casual reader of the NT. It is the same as with Gods glory (Messiah) and also of her own glory -her hair being designed to be seen not covered, and in-so-doing glorifying God Himself who fills all in all. Attempts by Ian (on old Fulcrum) and especially by Alan Padgett (As Christ submits to the Church) to show that in some sense Christ does submit to the Church dont work. However she doesnt really delve into why it isnt the case here. In other words, there is a because of link between kephale and sacrificial love in each case. Because head means source, he establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. I think this is also whats going on in 1 Cor 11. Every lexicon of New Testament Greek, that Ive looked at, has a definition that means something like leader. What does ordination training need to include? However, in Hebrew, as in English, head can also mean a leader or ruler. Instead, they understood kephaleas meaning beginning or source. In the West, Latin has always been more popular than Greek, and until last century, Latin was the lingua franca of the scholarly world. I am also unclear as to why a woman ought to have authority over her own head is a problem for this readingquite the contrary. What I meant was that a word study can get you so far but I think this doesnt take into account the wider context. This is interesting, Ian, but Im not entirely sure what light this throws. In first-century KoineGreek, the language of the New Testament, the Greek word kephale(head) also had metaphorical meanings. (Please note: this is the only place where authority and head are read in context together rather ironic really.) Tweets at @psephizo. My dear dad is a strict believer in headship but he admits the only time he put his foot down and made a decision against my mums desire, he was wrong, it led to disaster and he shoulda listened. Head with a meaning of point of origin or beginning (or source) was not common in ancient Greek, but it was less rare than the meaning of leader. It is not controversial that men and women are complementary in certain very central ways. In 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul reminds them and we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. See post Phil Almond August 28, 2014 at 3:42 pm #at: https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/pauls-concern-for-the-women-in-timothys-churches-notes-on-1-tim-2-8-15/, I agree Phil But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything. These mistakes (if that is what they were) established a precedent (albeit on a limited scale) for the use of kephale in relation to authority in a context that is surely more relevant to the NT than usage in Xenophon, Thucydides etc. Another piece of evidence that showskephaledid not usually mean leader in ancient Greek is that LSJ, the most exhaustivelexicon of ancient Greek, does not include any definition of kephalethat approximates leader or authority. Thanks for looking Ian. Thanks Ian and Marg for a good summary, at present I am reading through Paul through Mediterranean eyes, it;s well worth the effort. In the instances where rosh meant a leader, in the majority of cases, the translators did not use the word kephalein their translation. Gilbert Bilezikian interprets this passage similarly in I Believe in Male Headship. I am content to disagree with you though, as to re-hash this would be simply repeating what was covered at length elsewhere. It is not easy to realise how counter-intuitive actual physiology is, which explains why it took us so long to work it out. Same argument would apply to non-Anglican set-ups. Wolters provides two instances where he says kephalemeans leader in Philo,and two in Josephus. 3. But when the reverse is never said (for example, that a woman like a man may simply be being immature; or that there is no reason why men should necessarily be weaker in more areas than women are though of course they may be) then either cultural conformity, ideology, or both is probably afoot. Interesting I shifted from an egalitarian to a complementarian position. 38:7 LXX), and they note that kephale occurs three times in Isaiah 7:8-9, bumping the overall number up from 5 to 8. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:673-681. In the language of later centuries, The Son proceeds from the Father. Christ comesfrom God.
It just doesnt make sense to me. One example the word epithesis in the Septuagint it means: in 2 Chr 25:27; Ez 23:11; 2 Mc 4:41; 5:5; 14:15 setting upon, attack: and in 2 Mc 4:41; deception, corruption Ez 23:11. Never to allow the seesaw to be weighted in the other direction is in no way egalitarian. [16], [1] Wayne Grudem (who published papers on this topic in 1986, 1990 and 2001) and Joseph Fitzmyer (1989, 1993) have investigated the word kephaleand conclude it can mean leader or ruler. . God did not, and does not, single out men as his authorised spokesmen (prophets) or as protectors. I think its also harder to see kephale as source in Ephesians 5, where Paul seems to use it as the grounding for the submission of the wife to the husband. I agree that submission isnt obedience, but I dont think that changes the point. Before we got married we had marriage preparation with someone who told us the husband was called to be the spiritual head of the family. 12:22-25). [9]Thayers lexicongives the definitions: Metaphorically, anythingsupreme, chief, prominent; of persons,master, lord . Marg doesnt include all the references. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. Pushing this a little do you think this is ontological or functional? More on thishere.). Heres the info I have at hand. But the argument of this article, while it gives added weight to a weakening of the false confidence of male chauvinism (or feminism), it cannot fit the context of Pauls usage satisfactorily in Ephesians 5. My point is that the complementarian position is shaped by an adversarial posture towards feminism. It is clear from the section that kephale implies things for both parties; is there a reason why you focus on the lesser rather than the greater? Or even an Archbishop as is the case of the forthcoming Archbishop of Perth, whose husband is an atheist. At times the church in the west pays a high price for not fully understanding the context and language of the first century, especially Jewish thought as opposed to Greek. The first day of the year is not in authority over the rest of the year. Admittedly this is a very small example but it does show a transformation of meaning in the NT compared to secular usage throughout the ages. These three men, and others, were concerned that if kephalewas understood as meaning ruler or authority in 1 Corinthians 11:3 it would lead to a distorted christology. I wonder whether Paul chose kephale because he was coining something new not a leader or a ruler or a source but something different. To quote John Lee (a specialist in Greek lexicography): it is basically a lexicon of Classical Greek and does not pretend to cover the post-Classical material in a thorough way (The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker; Eerdmans, 2004, p68). I suggest that the Greek word kephalein 1 Corinthians 11:3 has a similar meaning of origin or beginning, or, as some say, source. Instead,they typically used the Greek word archon,which does mean leader or ruler. In fact, Paul, and every other New Testament author, never usesanyof the many Greek words that commonly meant leader when writing about husbands. Verse 10, because she as an ezer-kenegdo (ezer=help to rescue/protect and kenegdo= in front of from its root emphasizing direct spoken communication to the recipient faced) was created for the mans sake Paul therefore argues that she therefore functions as one of the angels (-those sent with a message).
But the abuse does not (should not) abolish the use. As the first human to proceed from God (in creation), man uniquely represents the glory of God. exclusive male leadership in the Church (men and women even sat separate) but oh, the wives were unchallenged rulers in the house , What happens if the woman is a minister, or even a Bishop, whose husband is not a Christian?. Some of these church fathers were writing at a time when kephaleoccasionally could mean leader or a person in authority. . Christ is both kephale of the church and the self-giving loving Saviour who gave himself for the church; the husbands are exhorted to imitate him; the church is under the authority of Christ and commanded to subject itself to his commands and leadership; the wives are exhorted to imitate the church. I also agree that this is not a hierarchical relationship (over / under) but that one party has, lets call it, authority, but uses that authority to love and build up the other; and the response is loving submission. If rosh, arche, sometimes kephale do not precisely map onto either English beginning or English chief but merge the two, then we have to determine meaning from context. Verses 4-6 is the traditional practice of Jewish men praying/prophesying (at that time) without a covering while woman could only pray/prophesy with head covered (the Kippah worn today only arrived on the scene in the 2nd century CE well after Pauls communication to Corinthian believers.) There are three reasonably clear examples where kephalemeans origin or beginning in surviving texts which date before First Corinthians was written: Herodotus 4.91.2, the Orphic Fragment 21A, and the Testament of Reuben 2.2. Craig Blomberg, David Garland, Judith Gundry Volf, Alan Johnson, Craig Keener, I. Howard Marshall, Andrew Perriman, A.C. Thiselton, and others, suggest kephalecan have the sense of prominent, preeminent, honoured, etc. The main reason for this for English speakers is that the term is deeply and widely connected with notions of authority, control and leadershipjust think headteacher or headmaster and other compounds, and you can see how natural this is for us. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is one of the most difficult passages of the Bible to interpret. I will indeed look for your recommendation, it is very welcome. It is this reason that tells us he is either lying or he is actually referring figuratively to covering his head as Messiah alone is the exact image and glory of God. I think that the word source takes the edge off male-chauvinism, which is a good thing since, like aggression, it does no one any good. How would you see this playing out there? Since Paul is certainly not saying that God put all things under Jesus feet and so made him the source over all things in the church. Cyril (376-444), Archbishop of Alexandria, in De Recta Fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam wrote: Therefore of our race he [Adam] became first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. To make a one-off or repeat donation to support the blog, use PayPal with the button below: We promise not to spam you.
As well as the occurrences that Fee lists, the Mickelsens include Jeremiah 31:1 (Jer.
The natural inference from this (in physiological and so metaphorical terms) is that the head is not the place of control, but the source of life-giving energy for the body. But regarding the passage actually addressed in the article (1 Corinthians 11), Pauls concern seems to be that the glory of humanity is veiled in the act of worship. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Thanks for your post. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives.
While source/origin readings create problems of their own, they seem, on purely pragmatic grounds, to be simpler. Translators who assumed the authority metaphorical mean of head actually had to change this verse into have a *sign* of authority over her head as this was the only way to make sense of the verse. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything. And because I am arguing the case that the Bible rules out the ordination of women though it emphatically asserts the ministry of women. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. When we say a couple looks good together, is it not almost always the case that they do not at all look the same as one another, but they are 2 equally lovely but quite different parts, with different experiences and different attributes, and the whole is greater than the sum of the 2?
Several early church fathers taught that the meaning of kephalein 1 Corinthians 11:3 means origin or beginning (or source). According to the author there are eight passages in the LXX where KEPHALE does mean (something like) leader. 1 Corinthians 11:3 has been used to support an idea called covering, which is that women need the covering or protection of a mans (spiritual) authority.
The Greek word kephale, which literally means head, is one factor which contributes to making this passage difficult to understand. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, What does Kephale mean in the New Testament? in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen (ed) (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986) 97-110, 103. In English, the word head has many meanings apart from its literal sense. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 503 fn44. Personally, I think something like a woman ought to exercise self-control over her head makes the best sense in the context. Indeed, and it is worth noting that our modern understandings of physiology are quite counter-intuitive. Hang onin this section what is the major issue that Paul is needing to address? Maybe St Paul would refer us to St Peter who seems to agree with St Paul = 1 Peter 3v1? However, working from a text that uses the word kephale four times, and not three times, in Isaiah 7:8-9, he dismisses two of the four occurrences as being capital cities and not leaders (i.e. Knowing how a word is used in its cultural and historical context is the only way we know what a word means. The asymmetry of both relationships cannot be avoided. If you dont mind sharing personal experiences online that is! If they then ran around like a headless chicken (!) Follow meon Twitter@psephizo. Out of interest, what does your wife think on this, and how do you find it works out in practice? The debate about the meaning of head and headship (even though the latter does not occur in the NT) continues to rumble on. I agree Ian, this is a clear well argued piece. I once heard a sermon about how the husbands leadership is a gift for the family which benefits the whole family if both husband and wife and willing to accept it. But the Bible does emphatically support the ministry of women and I understand how the unbiblical subjection of women by men, even by Christian men, has inflamed this whole disagreement. Thanks, Phill. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Matt, you may have missed Ian Pauls contribution to the ESV debate but it is here: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/can-we-fix-bible-translation/. Christ is the agent of God in creation.
Also, Colossians 3:18-19, The wives, be ye subject to your husbands, as is befitting in the Lord. It is very fashionable to say that men need to take more care than women; that the biblical demand on men is greater than that on women; there will be times when that is also true, just as there will be times when the reverse is true. Are we really saying that prior to the fall, woman would have lost all sexual desire for their husband post-childbirth (this is the implication), but post-fall, they are cursed to desire their husbands? Unsubscribe at any time. Because the analogy Christ-church/husband-wife is tightly coupled and because the Christ-church relationship is asymmetric in terms of authority and subjection. In other words, they ought to exercise sound judgement and self-control amongst themselves if they are to be judges of others, including the angels. I am not sure it is quite fair to suggest that the editors of the NT lexicons might have made their decisions because of tradition and a male-dominant world-view. 11:3; Eph. Kenneth Bailey interprets it like this: The origin of every man is Christ (i.e. The part of the statement regarding the angels could then relate to Pauls eschatological teaching in 6:3 that the saints will judge the angels. Yes, the curse of Genesis 3 predisposes men to rule over women, but the same curses predisposes woman to desire, or covet, the position of the man. Craig Keener offers this interpretation as one possibility in Paul, Women and Wives (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992, 2009), 33-34. English translations usually read, The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.[2]. Its not the case that i think husbands are leaders in the secular sense of the word, but rather to exercise a spiritual leadership and have a spiritual authority as the Lord desires. Lets see; he addresses 40 words to the womenand 116 to the men. [15] Bailey,Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes,302. This is shown by the conclusion he comes to: that a woman has long hair, that has been given to her *in place of* (anti) a covering, so that women can pray and prophesy in the assembly and no-one should hinder her. [10]Gilbert Bilezikian, I Believe in Male Headship(Source). Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.. Simon Women do not respect a man who shuns authority but one who takes authority, while also clothed in humility and being under authority. [12]Johnson, A Meta-Study, quoting from Bilezikians 1986 paper A Critical Examination of Wayne Grudems Treatment ofKephalein Ancient Greek Texts, presented for a plenary session of the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, (Oct. 20, 1986). . Several Early Church Fathers Did Not Interpret Head As Meaning Leader In 1 Corinthians 11:3. God used, and uses, women as prophets and protectors. Romance (the chaser and the chased, the lord and the lady): without complementarity romance is dead, and that is a large backward step. If we have no clear definition of the male-female difference, there will be a danger of robbing young couples of the grand historic and cultural narrative(s) that is/are their heritage and right. [5] H. Schlier, kephale . [16] Prayer and prophecy may be succinct ways of describing vocal ministry to God (prayer) and vocal ministry from, or on behalf of, God (prophecy). The origin of woman is man (i.e. Incidentally, Montanaris Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (published 2015) unlike LSJ, does offer leader as a meaning of kephale. This sense may fit with the themes of glory and shame in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.