As I continue writing blog posts on the issue of gender as it pertains to Christian ministry and why I now lean to the egalitarian, one of the sticky issue’s within the issue is the question of headship. A casual reading of scripture tells us that the man/husband (anēr) is the “head” of the woman/wife (gunē) (cf. 1 Cor 11.3; Eph 5.23). The question is what does the word head mean? Following that question then is the more theological question of what does it mean for the man/husband to be the head of the woman/wife or how should that headship be exercised?
Among scholarly literature are people like Wayne Grudem and Joseph Fitzmyer who answer the question as having to do with “authority.” Thus meaning the female is to be in submissive authority to the male. On the other side of the coin are people like Catherine Clark Kroeger and Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen who answer the question as having to do with “source.” Thus just as the church’s livelihood is made possible by Christ, so in a patriarch society does a woman’s livelihood depend on her husband. As you can expect, depending on which side a writer hangs their hat on, they’ll have credible reasons why to reject the other view. And let’s face it, regardless of whom we currently agree with, none of these scholars (and many others) are dummies writing without having done their homework. That is, they’ve done their research and are convinced that the evidence points them to…
So where does that leave us then?
Rather than just using 1 Cor 11.3 and Eph 5.23 as flippant proof-texts with pretentious assumptions in order to try and prove what we already think these two verses say, consider this: To answer the question at hand, we really need to be asking what the Apostle Paul meant when he used the word head. As we think about that, we need to keep in mind the Old Testament since Paul was well versed in the Hebrew Bible, specifically the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT). With that in mind, consider that the Hebrew word ro’sh (head) occurs in the Old Testament, by my search count, 589 times. In the Septuagint, there are roughly 180 uses where the word conveys the idea of leadership or authority. Of those 180 approximate uses, the Greek word kephalē (head), which is used in 1 Cor 11.3 and Eph 5.23, is used to translate ro’sh only 8 times. Whereas the Greek word archōn (ruler) is used 109 times as a translation for ro’sh (with a few other Greek words being used to translate the rest of the occurrences of ro’sh). Given this evidence, if Paul was trying to convey the meaning of an authoritative position, would not the word archōn (ruler) have been a better choice then kephalē (head)?
What then does this prove? Nothing in and of itself! But for this post, I’m not trying to prove anything. Rather, I am trying to muddy the waters a little more so that we may be a bit more humble? It seems rather naive to think that two verses which speak about the male being the head over the female will so simply solve the complementarian vs. egalitarianism issue. And we have yet to even consider whether or not for Paul, in some of his corrective instructions for the two troubled churches of Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1.11) and Ephesus (1 Tim 1.3, 18; 3.14-15; 4.11), to be accommodating certain aspects of culture in order to bring about resolution before the even greater issue‑the gospel‑is damaged any further. That assumes that we can get past reading the New Testament like it’s a flat text existing in a contextual vacuum that’s read as though it were a piece of legislation or a constitution of some sorts.
All that I am hoping to point out is that I don’t believe, at least not at this point, that pin-pointing the precise definition of one word is going to solve the issue as it relates to gender and Christian ministry. Will it help? Perhaps so…probably, but as I have tried to show, defining that word is not as easy as some would have us believe.
It a couple of other posts, I will hopefully offer more reason as to why I think the egalitarian view is more likely. I do think that my friends Sean Palmer and Tim Archer may have a point about not drawing such a sharp distinction between egalitarian and complementarian (if I’ve understood them correctly). I also want to make it clear that even though I’ve staked my ground in the egalitarian camp, I do so lightly and with humility, knowing that I could be wrong. Further more, know that for ten years now I’ve held on to the complementarian view. So it is not as if my view has changed just so that I can jump on some politically correct Western cultural bandwagon.
Any ways, thanks again for reading. As always, if you wish to leave any questions of comments, just please remember to be courteous and Christianly as you do…and thank you for that too.
————————-
See also the two previous posts:
Christianity and Gender: Introduction
Christianity and Gender: Creation or Fall?
After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spu
Jesus and the Victory of God
The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story
The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission
Actually defining the word is pretty easy for most all translations and lexicons translate kephale as head and define it as something along lines as rank in order, leader, ruler, or one in authority,etc. including Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich.
But you are right by itself giving a precision definition will not solve gender question. Context as i know you know is always deciding factor! But still it does establish a set of good perameters and I think calls into serious question this idea of ‘source’ being more accurate than ‘headship/authority.
Actually, according to Liddell and Scott lexicon (which, although older, is more expansive than Bauer’s), there is evidence to suggest that the word kephalē could imply “source” or even “head” but with the sense of nobility rather than authority (none of those possibilities detracts the headship of Christ to the church one bit). Of course, as I said, none of that proves anything. As is so often the case, lexically defining such words becomes a matter of “Is so…is not, is so…is not”. But it seems to me that if we to take “head” in an authoritative sense, a question to ask is why Paul chose the word kephalē instead of archōn (ruler) when the former appears to be the preferred way the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word ro’sh (head).
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Jesus and Women | Kingdom Seeking
Rex,
You said, “As often is the case, lexically defining such words becomes a matter of “Is so…is not, is so…is not.”
That might be true in general but not in this case when it comes to the meaning of the Greek word kephalē.” You give the impression that there is actually any real debate among the lexicons when all the preponderance of evidence argues against the defining kephalē as source rather than authority.
Rather of all the New Testament lexicons, they almost all give the meaning for kephale as leader, ruler, or person in authority.
The only exception is of course as you mentioned, Greek-English Lexicon edited by H.G. Liddell and Robert Scott. (It’s in its 9th edition and the last revision was by Henry Stuart Jones in 1968) And yes, it does give as part of the entry for kephale as: “In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, orphic fragments 21a; starting point (examples: the head of time; the head of a month). (p. 945)
Now, I don’t know if you have read the article by Wayne Grudem: The Meaning Source ‘Does Not Exist,’ Liddell-Scott Editor Rejects Egalitarian Interpretation of ‘Head.” In that article he references a letter from P.G.W. Glare, who has served as the editor of the supplement to this Lexicon since 1981. (Glare is also the editor of the Oxford Latin Dictionary) I’d say he is eminently quailed to comment on the definition of the word kephalē:)lol!
In the letter to Grudem, Glare denies that the word “head” ever had the meaning “source” in ancient Greek literature.
Regarding kephalē, Glare says, “The entry under this word in LSJ (Liddell & Scott, Liddell—rp) is not very satisfactory.” But he adds, “I was unable to revise the longer articles in LSJ when I was preparing the latest Supplement, since I did not have the financial resources to carry out a full-scale revision.”
With regard to win Grudem’s study of kephalē, he writes, “I am in broad agreement with your conclusions.” He adds, speaking of the usage in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), “kephalē is the word normally used to translate the Hebrew r’osh, and this does seem frequently to denote leader or chief without much reference to its original anatomical sense, and here it seems perverse to deny authority.”
Then Glare adds the following comment: “The supposed sense ‘source’ of course does not exist and it was at least unwise of Liddell and Scott to mention the word. At the most they should have said ‘applied to the source of a river in respect of its position in its (the river’s) course.” /.
Now, Rex, I’d say coming from someone who because of his position, can rightfully be called one of the most preeminent Greek scholars in the world, this is a significant statement. Glare adds that “in most cases the sense of the head as being the controlling agent is the one required” when dealing with similes or comparisons.
So, my friend, there really is no “battle of the lexicons” over the meaning of kephalē, but that the authors and editors of all the lexicons for ancient Greek now agree that the meaning “leader, chief, person in authority” clearly exists for kephalē, and that the meaning “source” simply does not exist.
Grudem concludes: “Glare, has undermined a foundational building block in the Egalitarian view of marriage. Glare denies that the word ‘head’ ever had the meaning ‘source’ in ancient Greek literature. Yet this meaning is essential to Egalitarian interpretations of Scripture regarding marriage.”
BTW, if you are really serious about researching and studying this topic about Head either being authority or source, then I’d encourage you to read Grudem article mentioned. Does Kephale (Head) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples. He examined 2,336 instances of the use of the word from the eighth century B.C. to the fourth century A.D. In 2,004 of those instances, kephale refers to the physical head in contrast to the rest of the body. Of the different occurrences, 49 examples hold the meaning of “head” in the sense of a “ruler” or “one having authority over” someone else: 12 in the New Testament, 13 in the Septuagint, 5 from other Greek Old Testament translations, 2 from Herodotus, 1 from Plato, 1 from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 7 from Plutarch, 5 from Philo, 1 from the Apostolic Fathers, 1 from the Greek Anthology, and 1 from Libanius. None of these instances use “source” as its meaning.
Grudem’s research is recognized by Biblical scholars as highly sound and credible.
But again, I do still concede your point, nothing substitutes for examining the particular usage of a word in its literary context. The context usually can give definite clues to the author’s intent in using a particular word whether it be the 1 Cor. 11, Ephesians 5 or Colossians 1, etc. passages dealing with headship.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
I’m not trying to argue for or against kephalē as “head” in an authoritative sense or as “source.” Unfortunately for those who want to insist on one meaning or the other, there IS enough evidence to raise questions and that has the support of a number of well-respected New Testament scholars. It’s also unfortunate how much we in the CoC like to appeal to the lexicons for support when they seem to support our views but on the other hand, want to distance ourselves from them when they undermine the dogma held on such issues as baptism and singing.
Any ways, I have read some of Grudem’s work on kephalē including one of the articles you mentioned. I also have the book he co-edited with John Piper titled “Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.” Additionally, I have an article written by a Complimentarian that makes an argument for kephalē as meaning “head” but not with the authoritative connotation.
Hey man, keep own dogmas on your own short leash:)lol! I agree we shouldn’t ‘cherry pick’ around the lexicons but in this case my friend the lexicons are overwhelming for head being leader or authority. I’m not sure what dogma you refer to baptism and singing but again most lexicons/scholars for last 2,000 support baptism veins immersion fir penitent believers and the early church singing without instrument but that’s another discussion:)
Robert Prater
Good morning,
In the case of kephale, I think we have the same situation as with diatheke (covenant/testament) in Hebrews and parthenos (virgin) in Matthew. In Hebrews, the broader meaning of the Greek work vis-a-vis the Hebrew is used to advance a theological point. In Matthew, the narrower meaning of the Greek is used to do the same. Likewise, Paul uses the ambiguity of kephale to express the connection of source (in Genesis) with headship. NT writers frequently take the translation of Hebrew scriptures into Greek as revelatory. Paul uses kephale that way.
billb
http://historeo.com
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Moving Towards Equality | Kingdom Seeking
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf
Grudem is not a Greek scholar, not by a long shot.
http://tiro3.typepad.com/spoudazo_logos_blog/2008/12/what-about-headship.html
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Regarding 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Regarding 1 Timothy 2.11-12 | Kingdom Seeking