Lisa Baumert, former theological intern at Christians for Biblical Equality, is a graduate of Wheaton College and is currently pursuing a Masters of Divinity at Princeton Theological Seminary … from CBE’s newsletter, Arise.
What does “headship” mean? How do we determine the meaning and connotations of this term?
* * * * *
What does it mean when Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-23, “Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”? For many of us in the church, this passage is one of those parts of Scripture we would prefer to avoid or ignore. Its language is metaphoric and clothed in imagery from a social and political world quite foreign to our own. Instead of abandoning or uncritically applying these confusing commands, however, let’s seek to more fully understand what Paul was saying to his audience in the first century, and explore how his instructions bear upon the Christian church today. Most importantly, let’s read this passage of Ephesians in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to understand how these teachings are shaped by the gospel.
Ephesians 5:22-33 is located within a larger passage that addresses Christian relationships and living. Paul’s concern here is that followers of Christ live lives of holiness—lives that are characterized by righteousness and newness of life through the power of the Holy Spirit. In this section of Ephesians, Paul addresses three different relationships: wives and husbands, slaves and masters, and children and fathers. These three relationships were common to the Greco-Roman household of the first century, and speaking and writing about these relationships would have been common practice.
The key to understanding Paul’s writing on these three relationships in this passage is found in his command in 5:18 “to be filled with the Holy Spirit.” All of Paul’s statements that follow this verse are made with this command in mind. Thus, being filled with the Holy Spirit is the basis on which the commands in the rest of the book of Ephesians are made.
Therefore, notice in 5:21 that Paul states that the Holy Spirit enables Christians to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Submission is presented here as a characteristic of the new humanity in Christ, not merely a feminine ideal—as common interpretations of this passage assume. All Christians are to submit to one another in love and humility—an idea which, at the time Ephesians was written, would have drastically challenged society’s understanding of human relationships. Rather than advancing the accepted and widespread hierarchy of his day, Paul challenged all people—men, women, slaves, and free—to be filled with the life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit, and so to submit to one another.
Paul’s assertion in this passage that wives submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22) is commonly interpreted by Christians as giving husbands authority over their wives. However, in light of the command to “be filled with the Holy Spirit” (5:18), as well as the command to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21), this assertion should not be read as a prescription for male headship within marriage.
Male authority and leadership in the home and church is frequently supported by verse 23 which says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” The term “head” is often read today to mean “ruler” or “authority.” The original Greek text of Ephesians however, does not allow for such an ordered interpretation of the word “head.” In this passage, the limits of the English language blur an important distinction between several meanings of the term that is translated “head” in English. Rather than indicating hierarchy, and therefore the unilateral submission of wives to their husbands, the Greek word for “head” used here by Paul is properly understood to convey the ideas of dependence and unity.
Kephale, the Greek word which is translated “head” in this passage, means “source,” and conveys the idea of one who willingly sacrifices and lays down their life. Thus, kephale indicated to Paul’s audience chronology rather than leadership or authority. This understanding of “head” is consistent with Paul’s assertion in 5:23 that Christ is the head or kephale of the church. Another Greek word which can be translated “head” in English is arche. Arche was used in Paul’s time to convey the idea of hierarchy, and was also utilized to mean “leadership” or “ruler.” Significantly, Paul did not use this word when speaking of marriage in Ephesians and thus he explicitly avoided conveying the idea of gender hierarchy and therefore male authority.
Additionally, by selecting the Greek word kephale, or “head,” Paul speaks both of marriage and salvation history. Just as Christ’s body was the source of life for the church, so too Adam’s body gave rise to Eve (Gen.2). Thus, Paul was also seeking to highlight the unity and mutuality by which husbands and wives were to live. Christ and the church exist in a reciprocal and unified relationship of dependence. The church is dependent upon Christ for its wellbeing and life, and Christ lived and died for the sake of the church. Likewise, husbands and wives are to be unified and mutually loving toward one another. Therefore, the metaphorical similarity between the relationships of Christ and the church, and husbands and wives, is found in the idea of “source”—social dependence and unity—rather than in the commonly interpreted ideas of hierarchy and authority
Paul seems to frequently, if not consistently, use arche as something he and Jesus oppose or are in conflict with. Yet Christ is said to be the kephale over all arches. For me, the “source” definition makes the most sense. But I would not object to seeing Paul as redefining a word that was culturally understood as having authority, with servanthood and mutuality as its redefined characteristics. Even if first-century readers though of kephales as authorities, Paul descriptions of the kephale stand in stark contrast to “arche” connotations that might have been transferred to “kephale” culturally.
Comment by Dave Leigh — September 20, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
Ms. Baumert’s exegesis is not convincing for a number of reasons. The command to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ has to be understood in context. “One another” language in the New Testament does not always indicated complete mutuality. For instance, “Stop depriving one another” (1 Cor. 7:5) uses the same term, but it is clear that only one party in the marital relationship was withholding sexual relations. This was not a mutual deprivation by any means. Likewise, “wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:33) indicates that there were some people not “waiting” for others for the Lord’s Supper. It was one group behaving in this way towards others who were not behaving this way, and it was not mutual. There are countless examples of this in the New Testament and in Paul’s writings in particular. So “one another” doesn’t by itself indicate mutual submission.
In fact, Paul is very careful in the context to specify which parties were to render unidirectional, voluntary submission to God-ordained human authorities: wives to husbands (v. 22), children to parents (6:1), and slaves to masters (6:5). Paul charges husbands to love their wives (5:25, 28, 33) but never to submit to them. Likewise, Fathers are called discipline their children (6:4) but never to submit to them. Husbands are said to be “head” over their wives just as Christ is “head” over the church. Since the analogy is with Christ and the church, it is very clear that headship involves the voluntary submission of one party to the other. Since Christ emphatically does not submit to the church, it is clear once again that mutual submission is not in view here.
There is much more that could be said here, but sufficient for now is the observation that this exegesis is not compelling. For that reason, the egalitarian application of the text is not compelling either.
Thanks for the chance to interact.
Comment by Denny Burk — September 20, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
I am sympathetic to this approach to the passage and do not think that this text prescribes rigid gender roles. Ms. Baumert is right to point out that the passage connects marriage to the church and that it advocates relationships of mutuality more than hierarchy. I am not convinced that source is the best translation for kephale. I think this because of how it is used about Christ earlier in 1:21-22, “Christ is the head over all things.” Is it possible that kephale carries a sense of one being represented? So that, the church represents Christ…Wives represent their husbands. Any thoughts?
Comment by Brian — September 20, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
I would like to question your following comment: “Christ and the church exist in a reciprocal and unified relationship of dependence.” The fact that the church is dependent on Christ is quite clear in this passage as well as others (John 15 for example). However, I think it is a stretch to suggest that Christ has the same reciprocal relationship with the church. This does not mean that Christ does not love the church, in case I am misunderstood. I just don’t see how Christ is dependent on the church as the church is on Him. Consequently, the application to husbands and wives needs to be understood in that light. If the word is translated as source, then I need further clarification how source is dependent on that which it gives life to. Thanks.
Comment by Samuel — September 20, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
I’m not saying that kephale cannot mean source, only that if it does egalitarians have discovered a definition alien to experts in the field.
From the editor of the Liddeel-Scott-Jones Lexicon
“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.”
“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’”
“in most cases the sense of the head as being the controlling agent is the one required” when dealing with similes or comparisons.
Max Turner (Modern Linguistics and the New Testament) analyzes the texts where the meaning “source” has been claimed and shows that other, established senses are preferable in each case. He says that the meaning “source,” as claimed by some, “is not recognized by the lexicons, and we should consider it linguistically unsound” (p. 167, italics added).
And here is Grudem’s examination of the 2,366 NT passages with Kephale and its derivatives where he shows that “source” is not an acceptable translation.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf
Comment by Robin — September 20, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
@ #2 Denny,
You said…
““One another” language in the New Testament does not always indicated complete mutuality. For instance, “Stop depriving one another” (1 Cor. 7:5) uses the same term, but it is clear that only one party in the marital relationship was withholding sexual relations. This was not a mutual deprivation by any means.”
Only, that is exactly what “one another” means in the passage you cited. They are not to deprive one another. It didn’t matter who was at fault, both are to submit to the same rule which is equivalent to mutual submission.
You said…
“In fact, Paul is very careful in the context to specify which parties were to render unidirectional, voluntary submission to God-ordained human authorities: wives to husbands (v. 22), children to parents (6:1), and slaves to masters (6:5). Paul charges husbands to love their wives (5:25, 28, 33) but never to submit to them. Likewise, Fathers are called discipline their children (6:4) but never to submit to them. ”
Paul very much tells husbands to submit to wives. He tells them to submit to one another and you’ve yet to adequately demonstrate that this is not meant to be mutual submission. Likewise, he often reverses the “unidirectional” roles. He tells Philemon to receive Onesimus as a “brother” – Onesimus was eventually the Bishop of Ephesus, a very non-slave role meaning that Philemon did receive his slave as a brother.
Comment by JoeyS — September 20, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
@ #5 Robin,
“I’m not saying that kephale cannot mean source, only that if it does egalitarians have discovered a definition alien to experts in the field.”
I don’t mean to speak for Scot, but you do realize that he is an “expert” in New Testament studies, right? Last I heard him speak he reluctantly admitted that he rarely reads the New Testament in English because he prefers the Greek. I think we can safely assume that he posted this because there is substantial evidence that should give all of us cause to pause and consider.
Comment by JoeyS — September 20, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
Scot is an expert in new testament studies…but when it comes to things like the basic meanings of greek words I value the opinions of the guys that write the lexicons more highly.
I don’t know how much damage this does to the greater argument. It appears that the evidence for using “source” is paper thin. On a controversial issue like this I would stay away from explanations that require paper-thin evidence since it tends to discredit other portions of your argument that are based on more solid evidence.
Comment by Robin — September 20, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
@ #8 Robin,
Of course not all scholars for whom this is a specialty agree with the one’s you’ve cited.
The TDNT, for instance, lists 27 metaphorical translations none of which imply authority.
Comment by JoeyS — September 20, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
It would have been helpful if the author could have given some data. It does appear true that kephale could mean source, but not necessarily that it does. On the other hand, almost all of Grudem’s examples could imply hierarchy, but also could imply synecdoche, or representative head. (E.g., we who live among ranchers talk about heads of cattle, to represent the whole animal.) This usage is demonstrated in Grudem’s analysis showing representative head is the most common meaning (5%) when not referring to the body part. Hierarchy, which is present at times in the Hebrew usage of r’osh, is only used 2% of the time and one wonders how often those come from the LXX and post Pauline interpretations.
In either case, while “source” may be poorly attested, the use as representative head is not and it fits well within the context of the Pauline usage here. It is possible that synecdoche could be understood to support traditional roles but it certainly does not do so automatically. In fact, it fits rather well with the unified whole and it fits well theologically on a number of levels.
Comment by Dan Arnold — September 20, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
JoeyS,
Do you have a link for the 27 metaphorical translations. I don’t have TDNT.
Comment by Robin — September 20, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
No, the TDNT is not found online. You might find the TDNT in the library.
I think a stronger word to focus on, if you want to refute Ms. Baumert, is the word submit, or hupotasso. I think there is enough evidence for “head” being rightly translated “source” to consider. But hupotasso has me hung up a bit.
Comment by JoeyS — September 20, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Hi Everyone,
I am one who believes women can be ministers and lead all kinds of ministries in the church. At the same time, my studies some while ago led me to not believe that the greek word for Head is best translated source. As one who is a contrarian at times, it seems to me that reading Paul as a hierachicalist or as an egalitarian is a misreading of Paul.
If someone wants to see one article aimed in this direction for example, see Craig Blomberg’s article in TWO VIEWS OF WOMEN IN MINISTRY.
Comment by Chris Criminger — September 20, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
JoeyS,
I think I could have taken the article more seriously if she had at least admitted, up front, that there is a dispute over whether or not “source” is an acceptable translation of Kephale. After all, it isn’t a settled issue, but she pretends like it is:
“Kephale, the Greek word which is translated “head” in this passage, means “source,” and conveys the idea of one who willingly sacrifices and lays down their life.”
When someone claims something like this, not giving any clue to the dispute behind the definition, it makes it look like she is trying to get over on the reader. “Look, I’ll just say this, and they won’t be smart enough to do their own research and realize there is a debate about this definition”
In short, it makes lay-readers like myself not trust her. It would have been much better for her overall argument to either (1) Illuminate the debate and explain why she thinks it is acceptable (2) Leave it out. This makes her look disingenuous.
Comment by Robin — September 20, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
JoeyS,
Plus “Source” as it is used by egalitarians doesn’t have its origin in “conveying the idea of one who willingly sacrifices and lays down their life” but in Liddell-Scotts Lexicon which lists one possible translation of Kephale being “source of a river” when it is used in the plural form (It is used in the singular in the text under discussion).
Overall, it just looks like she is trying to get over on the reader.
Comment by Robin — September 20, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Dave Leigh (#1) began this thread with an insightful kingdom of God perspective. Even if we posit that kephale means “head” and not “source” (though there is no dispute lexically for that kephale means “source” in some contexts) in Eph 5, what Paul is doing is still explosive to the hierarchial world he’s in. He addresses the lower rung person first in each case–the wives, the children, the slaves. This is upside-down kingdom stuff. He is addressing them as persons who have a choice. In the Roman familia, the husband, father and master are usually the same person. He is mentioned second. Only only is “submitting to one another” the controlling verbal form for wives and husbands, Paul is elevating the value of children and slaves. As for Jesus not submitting to the likes of the church, I wonder what the footwashing of the disciples was all about. Can’t we have a Savior Who serves?
Comment by John W Frye — September 20, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
Oops! comment #16 should read…”Only the verbal form ‘submitting to one another’ is the controlling verbal form of the pericope about wives/husbands.” THAT IS, there is no imperative for wives– Submit to your…
Comment by John W Frye — September 20, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
“Kephale, the Greek word which is translated “head” in this passage, means “source,”” — The problem her is that Kephale is a metaphor. As such to say it “means” source doesn’t get us much further than traditional interpretations that suggest it “means” leader. What we should be doing is looking at what the context is doing and the possible range of meanings for the metaphor.
That “Kephale” was associated with the concept of “source” has been touted in some circles, but the comparative linguistics studies have been thin.
Likewise…for all his pomp, Grudem’s exhaustive study on Kephale merely groups usages he believes are associated with leadership and says they “mean” leader.
In Ephesians the clues are numerous that leadership is not what is at stake. Indeed Baumert points some of that out to us. But then…”Man is the Kephale” of woman as Christ is the “Kephale” of the church — ought not to be boiled down to a rather forced reading (source or leader). Nothing in the context suggests source anymore than leader. However…if you look at the medical language used in the broader context of Ephesians (life flowing through sinews, etc…)…it seems apt to suggest that something of a life sustainer is being insinuated. This squares well with the role of the Spirit in the passage. Further, in the Greco Roman literature, kephale is sometimes used pantheistically. In one source it is said that Zeus is the head of the universe that is his body. Again, the life force is what is being hinted at.
In short…stop reading metaphors as if they were syllogism…allow the context to suggest as it does that the metaphor hints at a profound relationality marked by the deep sharing and sustaining of life. And then…stop reading the bible as if the earth is flat and let Paul’s context be his own and not force contemporary gifted women to resemble their sisters that were confined to fewer and lesser roles two thousand years ago. Such self-serving readings once kept our African American brothers under the heels of plantation owners.
My 2 cents…
-Michael
Comment by Michael THomson — September 20, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
I really didn’t think I’d get called a flat-earther and modern-day slave owner on this thread, but oh well.
Maybe it means source, but that is far from clear. Pretending that it is clear cut makes you look deceptive. That is my only present point.
It is much easier to make great insights like those of John Frye, than to use arguments that make you look like you have an agenda.
Comment by Robin — September 20, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
Grudem’s work is often cited in response to the kephale discussion. What is the best response out there to Grudem’s piece?
Comment by MatthewS — September 20, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Let me state my bias up front
I pretty much agree with where the author is going here… I’m egalitarian,(though I think that word doesn’t really do the position justice), and think that women should serve and minister in any position of the church, as the Spirit gifts, and as they are competent to do so.
I have to comment and say that the study sighted by Robin (#5) is disputed… yes, TDNT and other solid scholarship shows ‘Kephale’ can mean source.
My questions…
why do we assume the context of Ephesians here goes straight to source = leadership ‘over,’ without making the connection to Paul’s broader teaching on the Body?… In other words, couldn’t this also be an echo of the ‘Body of Christ’ language?
If so, head is more likely to = source. In my understanding, part of the ancient Greek thought Paul was using for the ‘Body’ metaphor includes describing the human body like a tree… with the head being the trunk (source), and the limbs being the branches.
Also, one more…
I also just wonder if both sides don’t really see Scripture ‘on it’s own,’ at this point. We always interpret while we read, and the Wesley Quadrilateral, or something like it, usually comes into play (reason, experience, tradition/community, and Scripture)…
Often I feel like we’re not arguing over just exegesis of Scripture on this issue. Even if there was an interpretation that could change our mind either way, it might take one of the others as well (a new experience, someone we trust in authority giving permission, etc.) to really change our mind!
Comment by MattR — September 20, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
John Frye,
This is the key isn’t it – if “headship” however viewed is interpreted in the context of Christ who lay down his life for the church, washed feet, associated with outcasts and sinners – we have no problem. Christ is head of the church…and what does Paul say about this?
In Philippians 2: Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Headship means submission, servanthood, emptying oneself, regarding others as more important … wow.
Nothing here about hierarchy, ultimate authority, or who gets to make the final call in the event of an impasse.
The NT turns our “power” desires on their head and tells us to stomp them out – and it does the same for all of us, male and female.
Comment by rjs — September 20, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
Hey Scot, what are your thoughts on the rendering of kephale as “source”? Do you think this is a legitimate gloss with substantial support? I’ve read Grudem’s article and found it pretty convincing, but I’m not a NT scholar. I’m interested to hear from someone of your caliber who is predisposed toward a different conclusion.
I think we would all be interested in your thoughts on this…
Comment by Gerald Hiestand — September 20, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
John Frye & RJS, Didn’t see this before posting my comment… so I have to just say ‘amen.’
What RJS said in #22 gets to the heart of the issue for me.
Comment by MattR — September 20, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
I work primarily in circles where the traditional view is held. I emphasize mutual “submitting to one another out of reverance for Christ”. I speak to these verses as the “form” discipleship to Christ takes in each of these roles in Christian marriage. Denying yourself, taking up your cross and following Jesus means submission for the wife and self-giving, sacrificial love for the husband. “Submission” and “loving your wife as Christ loved the church” are discussed in context of the cruciform way but not clarified to not mean abuse or martyrdom.
Comment by Mick — September 20, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
The article by Grudem in the text “Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” responds excellently to all the points made in the post. (check it out at cbmw.org…the entire text is free.)
These two sentences: “Christ and the church exist in a reciprocal and unified relationship of dependence. The church is dependent upon Christ for its wellbeing and life, and Christ lived and died for the sake of the church.”
Are rather scary theologically and don’t follow each other. The Church and Christ are not in a reciprocal relationship, rather the Church is (as defined in the NT) in a submissive relationship to Christ. Or did Christ’s atonement await the Church’s endorsement?
The second sentence does nothing to demonstrate the reciprocity in the relationship, rather it affirms that the Church is submissive to Christ and Christ has no role of submission to the Church. I’d rather enjoy seeing the passage(s) that make Christ submissive to the Church. How is Christ dependent upon the Church? I don’t see this in Scripture, rather the dependence wholly concerns the Church being dependent on Christ.
How is Christ dependent upon us? How is God, a necessary being, dependent upon humanity, contingent beings? I can’t imagine there is an orthodox answer to these questions.
Comment by Robert A — September 20, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
I’m not convinced the meaning of kephale is the real issue in this passage. The larger point Paul seems to be making is that an analogous relationship exists between Christ’s spiritual relationship with the church, and a man’s sexual/physical relationship with his wife. The whole “head/body” language is as much about “oneness” as it is about anything else. I know not all commentators agree that Paul is doing strict typology here, but his comment in verse 32 strongly points in this direction–the mystery of the man and the woman being ‘one flesh’ is profound and “refers to Christ and the church”. I take this to mean that Paul sees the organic bodily/physical relationship between the husband and wife as prefiguring the organic spiritual relationship between Christ and the church. What the Passover Lamb was to Christ, so too human marriage is to the Heavenly marriage of Rev 21.
Thus Paul’s commands regarding how the husband and wife should respond to each other is patterned after the way in which Christ and the church respond to each other. Which of course makes sense given that fact that Paul sees the husband/wife relationship as a living metaphor of the gospel itself.
Any interpretation of kephale that is limited solely to “authority over” (however true this might be) misses much of the deeper theological point that Paul seems to be making about oneness. (And I’m a complementarian!)
Comment by Gerald Hiestand — September 20, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
Thank you for jumping in here, John! My blood pressure was beginning to rise (fortunately, I tend to have low blood pressure ;^) so no worries)….
I was thrilled to find Dr. S. Scott Bartchy’s excellent article concerning Paul’s cultural “bomb” for those entrenched in patriarchal hierarchy, yet learning to follow Christ, in the Biblical Theology Bulletin.
The following link is to the page which contains his summary quotation, which I pasted below … but I would strongly encourage those reading and commenting (especially Robin) on this post to read the entire article.
Speaking of Robin — before you accuse someone of trying to mislead or of being disingenuous, it is important to discern the circumstance and audience for their writing. We do not know either the circumstance or the audience. And, here at Jesus Creed, we try to be generous when we do not know … so that we facilitate gracious and thoughtful discussion as brothers and sisters in Christ who love and honor and respect one another out of reverence for our Lord.
Reading your comments on this post and the earlier post of women in ministry (I sense you are new since the move to Patheos) does not encourage me to enter the discussion. I trust that you do not intend to discourage others, and so I wanted you to be aware of the impact of your tone.
There are a variety of lexical scholars who do not hold with Grudem’s table concerning kephale … and for some of us who have studied and followed this debate for over 30 years, it has become settled — for us. It will not, however, be settled in any blog … each of us must dig in and do the hard work for ourselves — reading and praying and mediating and discerning with sincerity and humility.
Here’s the link and the quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_4_33/ai_111734473/pg_17/?tag=content;col1
“Paul continued the historical Jesus’ vision of the surrogate kinship of “brothers and sisters” according to which kinship based on blood-ties was rejected in favor of relationships rooted in the personally chosen, intentionally embraced and shared commitment to the will of God the Compassionate. Paul’s basic model for his communities was a family of such “brothers and sisters”–his favorite designation for his readers–without an earthly father. For Paul, almost without exception, only God was to be the father of each community. The author of 1 Peter strongly agreed. As John H. Elliott has emphasized: “The authors [sic] of 1 Peter assert that God alone is the father of the Christian household and that, while the emperor deserves respect, as do all persons, God alone is the object of their awe and reverence (2:17)” (1993: 85).
“What then did Paul have to say to the fathers who became members of his house-based groups? In light of my argument I suggest that he would have expressed the first century Greek equivalent of “Get over yourself, my brother! For in our group we are all brothers and sisters. If your son or daughter is in the group, meet your new brother and sister ‘in the Lord.’ For among us, only God is called ‘Father’.”
Many times it is really important to back far away enough from the trees to see the forest. The overarching perspective of Jesus as suffering servant leader who turned the culture on its head — from whom Paul learned that when he is weak (not just physically) then he is strong (again, not just physically) — is that mutuality is the foundation for relationship in the body of Christ. So much so that God went to the trouble to adopt us as brothers of Jesus Christ so that we could be members of his family and call God our Father.
Here’s hoping some of you will set aside your disbelief long enough to listen to Dr. Bartchy’s survey of the forest, as it were.
Peace
Comment by Peggy — September 20, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Though I am an egalitarian, I am not persuaded by the “source” interpretation of kephale. I have not yet read any response by egalitarians that even comes close to unseating Grudem’s work (see list below). I am persuaded by egalitarian use of Galatians, by the cultural boundedness of Paul’s writing, and the inability of hierarchicalists to come up with a transcultural way of limiting women’s roles. I also disagree with the the self ascribed title of “complementarian”, which was purposefully chosen to avoid negative connotations. In so-called “complementarianism” there is no area where men have to submit to women, there are no roles (other than biological child bearing) that are reserved for women apart from men. It is hierachicalism in the home and in the church.
List:
Grudem, “Does Kephal (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal 6 (1985): 38-59
“The Meaning of Kephal (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 425-468, 534-541
“The Meaning of Kephal (‘Head’): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 25-65
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Kephal in I Corinthians 11:3, ” Interpretation 47 (1993) 52-59
Comment by John I. — September 20, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
There were a great many comments that came in during the long time I took to write my comment …
@20, MatthewS, Gilbert Bilezikian, in the Appendix to the Second Edition of his book “Beyond Sex Roles”, engages Grudem’s analysis of kephale in a fairly significant manner.
@25, RobertA, all submit to God as Father — Jesus went so far as to agree to leave Heaven to become human and die for us so that we could be his spiritual siblings. Jesus called himself the vine and we are the branches. Fruit that refreshes grows from the branches that are nourished from the vine … that sound like dependence to me.
I, however, prefer the term “interdependence” — and God has chosen to restrain his power when he made us ministers of reconciliation and ambassadors of the Kingdom.
And that’s as far as I’m willing to invest … because these topics too often, in my experience, get out of hand and when they do, they do not exhibit the love and grace and mercy of Christ … they do not encourage or build up … they are not full of humility.
Peace
Comment by Peggy — September 20, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Robin,
nobody called you “a flat-earther and modern-day slave owner”. The author of the comment about yours was speaking in general to people who hold the view he was describing. Neither he nor anyone else commenting singled you out.
People who write lexicons make interpretive choices too. If you’ve ever studied a living language, other than your mother tongue, to fluency, you would know this.
The issue will not be settled by those on either side posting or pointing to bible verses. Sincere Christian people of good conscience hold to both views. This is a hermeneutical question; however, I believe hermeneutical bases are chosen because of other reasons that have to do with culture (and church culture), personality, one’s own many-layered psychological baggage, and one’s sense of “how the world works”. It’s really not so cut and dried as “just read the bible” or “just read what so-and-so says about the passage”.
In my experience, non-hierarchalists are much more often accused by those of the other persuasion of not believing the bible (with the implication that maybe they’re not Christians) than complementarians are.
Regular commenters around here are actually likely to believe the best about you, especially if genuinely want to talk over coffee.
Dana
Comment by Dana Ames — September 20, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
MatthewS@20,
I think the best response to Grudem is in Suzanne McCarthy’s writings on her blog. Look around there.
http://www.powerscourt.blogspot.com.
Like Peggy, this discussion now pretty much exhausts me. I will say one last thing. To appeal to supposed eternal subordination by any one of the Trinitarian Persons to the other is to entirely misunderstand whatever can be understood about the Trinity. That some people do this in order to bolster the argument for the eternal subordination of women to men simply leaves me aghast.
Dana
Comment by Dana Ames — September 20, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
It seems pretty obvious that Paul’s intended meaning for kephale is head, as in that thing that sits on top of the neck. His metaphorical references to the body are too strong to think otherwise.
The contexts of kephale in Colossians 1:18 and 2:19 and Ephesians 4:15-16 seem to imply that the idea of the body (the Church) originating from the head (Christ) could reasonably be understood as the intended meaning. Whether that is the same as kephale meaning source I don’t know. But it’s a bit odd that complementarians have such strong objections to the general idea of kephale as source or origin in light of how the word is used in Colossians and Ephesians themselves, isn’t it?
Suzanne McCarthy has written quite a bit on kephale. Here is one article. A search will yield several others.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/09/kephale-as-source.html
Comment by BradK — September 20, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
ISTM from a recent reading of Ephesians that the unity of head and body was being more emphasized than the idea that the head is in charge of the body.
As for recent studies or rebuttals of Grudem, et al., see Philip B. Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ and his responses to his critics – http://www.pbpayne.com/
Comment by EricW — September 20, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
robin, unfortunately i have to agree with peggy (no. 28). i too have noticed your preponderance of comments on scot’s posts lately (twice today) and i do find it to be discouraging other’s participation. it seems a bit as if you are holding court on the comments section of scot’s blog. i think a bit of restraint in the number of your comments on any given post is in order so as not to dominate the discussion. you may want to consider starting your own blog since you seem to have a lot to say.
Comment by linda — September 20, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
While I firmly hold to the egalitarian reading of scripture, I don’t see a problem with Paul indicating order here. However, I do reject any sense of authority of one over another here. Paul in the context of his letter, acknowledges equality among all believers (2:19-22). Nevertheless, he is concerned with unity within the church (4:1-6, 4:25) and how that can best be achieved. A disorderly church can’t or won’t stay united. Why might the injunction for slaves to obey their masters be an issue? Is it because they are exercising their new found freedom and equality in the Lord in disorderly ways – presumably by disobeying their masters? Presumably, wives are also expressing their equality in Christ in disorderly ways. Paul is primarily concerned with church order here, not with correcting social inequalities. Most likely, the social upheaval implicit in Paul’s teachings on equality (eg Gal 3:28) has left the Ephesian church in some disorder. Is it possible to have order without authority/dominion? If we are co-siblings in one christian family then yes! Typically the oldest of siblings will run a family meeting – simply for good order. However, that sibling doesn’t have authority over any other, let alone ‘the final say’! The meeting chair among siblings simply has the added responsibility of conducting an orderly meeting by ensuring everyone is treated fairly and equally.
Comment by angusj — September 20, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
And before you think you’re being ganged up on, Robin…
I remember my early days at Jesus Creed … when the interaction on topics was hot and heavy and everyone had lots to say about everything.
The folks here were very kind and gracious with my long comments and intense opinions. I have learned wisdom from this community — when we mutually submit to each other in love everyone wins.
Peace
Comment by Peggy — September 20, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
Hey Gerald! I’ve been off line most of the day in school events and working on the garage with a friend.
Well, in brief: kephale is a metaphor; metaphor meaning is not determined by adding up cross references but first and foremost examining the context it which it is used.
1. I agree that 5:21 “heads” the passage and shows that all specifics are instances of submission to one another. There’s the gospel in that statement by Paul.
2. The first Christ analogy is that as Christ saved the body so the man is to save. The woman is to submit to her husband in this text.
3. The man is to love his wife by giving himself to her. It is in the man directives that #2 now makes sense: the man is to give himself for his wife.
4. Which means something fundamentally important: say what you want about “head,” but it is defined in this context not as leadership or direction but as the self-sacrificing life that purifies.
5. When they do this they become “one.”
There are no “roles” of leadership here; there are self-sacrificing, Christ-like behaviors of loving service.
It appears to me, then, that 5:21 says husbands and wives mutually submit: the woman by respecting her husband and the man by giving himself to his wife.
In closing, thanks Peggy for your wise attentiveness to the civility of this blog.
Comment by scotmcknight — September 20, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Labeling people as flat-earthers is in accordance with the “civility of this blog”? Interesting. I have never done so in a coffee shop.
To the topic at hand, there is a problem evoking the original Greek in advancing a particular exegesis. In decrying the failure of the English language to properly articulate that which is being communicated, one is invariably forced to either:
a) Embark on an extensive exploration of the entire passage, in the hopes that other Greek scholars will chime in.
b) Apply a translation of a particular Greek term against the context of the standard English translation.
The first approach is unlikely to incite immediate change in the way the average Christian approaches the text. The latter is incoherent, questioning the interpretation of one term, while arbitrarily holding the remainder as sacrosanct.
Comment by kevin s. — September 20, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
Kevin, for all your directness in the first two lines, the rest is all indirection. What on earth are you saying? Please just say it: using the word “kephale” the problem?
Comment by scotmcknight — September 20, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
The passage is said to be about headship (husband) submission (wife). But if you read closely there are three pairings about husband and wife and “head and submission” is not one of them.
Husband and Wife
Head (H) and Body (W)
Sacrifice (H) and Submit (W)
Love (H) and Respect (W)
I’m convinced that there are three primary ways that kephale is used in the NT:
Function – According to the Greeks, the anatomical function of the head was to provide life-giving sustenance and nurture to the rest of the body. It is the origination point from which the rest of the body springs up.
Representation – The head is the most visible and physically distinguishing part of the body. The face and head are the primary means by which we identify a whole person. The head represents the whole body to the world.
Elevation – The head is at the top, the highest point, of the body. In Greek, high elevation signifies prominence, preeminence, and importance.
But here’s the kicker. I don’t think Paul had any of these in mind and he isn’t metaphorically talking about authority. He is literally talking about a head and a body.
Verse 18 begins with a statement about mutual submission. Note that vs. 18-22 are one long sentence. The submission in 21 is no different than the submission in 22. In fact, I’m told a direct translation of the end of the sentence (that is 21 and 22) would read “…be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your husbands as you are to the Lord.” The sentence break at 21 and restatement of submission is for the sake of translation.
So what we have, starting at 18 is an exhortation to be filled with the Spirit and have mutual submission that seamlessly slides into the husband wife question. The wrap up point is the two becoming one in organic union in v 31, hearkening back to Gen 2.
How might Paul give a metaphor to exemplify organic union? A literal head and body. Both are distinct and yet inseparable. You can’t survive by loving one and hating the other, just as Christ’s body can not survive by loving one part and hating another.
Now I suspect Paul probably casts Paul as the head because certainly the husband would be the prominent member of the household in the couple. So if the marriage is to be compared to a body, then the husband as a the head would be a natural fit. But the issue here is not one of ruler and submitter but of a unified inseparable body functioning as one in mutual submission.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — September 20, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
I’ll also say that I don’t think head carries the connotation of “rule over.” It can be used of the one who is “first in line” or “sticks out above everyone else” and is therefore worthy of honor. By being outstanding that person may been seen as representative of the honor due all those attached to him. While ruling and honor frequently go together, one can rule without honor and one can have honor without ruling. I think think this is where the complementarian interpretation goes astray is to see rule and honor as identical. Christ is both Lord (the one who rules) and head (the one who is worthy of honor and by attachment those who are with him) of the church.
A clear example of the Greek metaphor for head as the source Col 2:18-19:
“18 Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God.”
Here the head is seen as the life giving and sustaining part of the body that keeps it healthy and growing.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — September 20, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Could Paul, in the middle of one of his greatest letters, have inserted this household code (this is not just about husbands and wives but also parents and children and masters and slaves) that was fundamentally at odds with his overall theology? Are we allowed to conclude that Paul’s theology at this point, while well meaning, was actually rather weak? Why not say “Wives, love your husbands as Christ loved the church”? As far as I can tell from Paul’s theology, such an ethical charge would be totally consistent with his gospel. I have doubts as to whether this greco-roman household code can be gospelized.
Comment by Alan K — September 20, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
“Kevin, for all your directness in the first two lines, the rest is all indirection. What on earth are you saying? Please just say it: using the word “kephale” the problem?”
Fair enough. I seem to have forgotten how to write.
What I’m saying is that, if you are going to decry the senselessness of modern English translation, it makes no sense to place one component of the original Greek against said translation.
In the context of persuasive writing, it is easy to exploit this to one’s advantage, by highlighting the ambiguity of one translated term above others in the cited context. That seems to be the case here.
Comment by kevin s. — September 20, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
Alan K
If interested, I did a 90 part series on “The Household of God” three years ago. Go to “Household of God” Series Index.)
The short answer is that I think that Jesus and later Paul (and other NT writers) were drawing heavily on the idea of fictive family and the household as a controlling metaphor for the church. God is the paterfamilias and we are all siblings, the most egalitarian of that culture’s context.
The household was the center of the culture. What is fascinating is the gospel subversion of the household code from within. To directly attack the household would have brought almost certain elimination. Instead, the concept of household is injected with a “virus” of mutual submission, that if lived out would mutate the household into something new in the culture. Rather than an attack from without it was subversion from within.
Also, within the same series I linked, I did some posts on the use of “head” in the NT. Scroll down to the section “New Testament Household Codes” and begin reading at the seventh post, “Household Code Lost in Translation: Kephale.”
It ain’t Scot McKnight but it’s my best shot.
Comment by Michael W. Kruse — September 20, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
“For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”
Seems like the key phrase is “as Christ is head of the church. Husbands are to love as Christ has loved, so whatever headship means, it has to mean sacrificial love.
But can we say that because Christ exercised this kind of headship, there is no distinction in role that follows from the image presented? Does the church have the same role or function as Christ? If the husband and wife symbolize Christ and the church, does it not follow that “headship” carries a similar relationship? That the bride, bridegroom distinction in Christ and church hold true in the bride to bridegroom distinction in the family?
Balanced with the idea that in Christ there is no slave or free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female, we can and should say men and women are equal before Christ, but in their role in the family unit, there are different roles where the husband sits in the symbolic role representative of Christ and the wife in the symbolic role representative of the church. Equality before God, separate roles in the family.
Headship does not mean power, for the command to the bridegroom is sacrificial love. “Submission” does not mean servitude, for all are equal under Christ’s authority. But to minimize the picture of bridegroom/bride as it relates to Christ’s role is to not let the Biblical image speak for itself.
My wife and I have lived with this understanding for 28 years. We never argue (other than frustration with circumstances). I never make a decision without her. She never presumes to act without my input. We mutually submit to each other. But she has no problem wit the word “submission” or “head” because she knows my desire in my best moments is to model Christ’s headship (And I do fail at that!) I can count on one had the times I felt as a husband I had to make an executive decision, and it was not in any way without her counsel. What I mean to say is that the model works quite well in our case. (And she deserves most of the credit).
The key is understanding that headship does not imply “power” but it does imply a difference in role.
Comment by Dan — September 20, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
Thanks, Scot. This is helpful. I agree with you that the meaning of a term is not determined by simply adding up cross references, particularly when it comes to metaphors. But there has to be at least some connection between a term’s normal semantic range and it’s use as a metaphor. Regardless, while I’m inclined to see the idea of “authority” within the normal semantic range of kephale, I don’t think that’s Paul’s primary focus here (as I stated above). So on that we agree. For me, Paul’s use of the term “head” here can’t be understood apart from how he associate it with body. Christ cares for the church because the church is his body. In the same way, the husband cares for his wife, because the wife is his body. The oneness of Christ/Church and the Man/Woman is what drives Paul’s comments regarding how they are to treat each other. But now I’m just repeating myself.
But what about “source”? Do you think any of the kephale passages in the New Testament carry this meaning? Or that the word itself carries this meaning in other ancient literature relevant to the first century context? I guess what I’m really asking is whether or not you agree with Grudem’s conclusion that “source” is not within the normal semantic range for kephale.
Appreciate your thoughts…
Comment by Gerald Hiestand — September 20, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
@Dan
By my lights, you have understood and implemented the texts as God intended. Good on you, sir.
Comment by kevin s. — September 20, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
I wish I could read the NT in Greek.. *sigh* maybe one day since I’m going to be taking biblical language classes
Comment by Jonathanblake — September 20, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
I’m a soft complimentarian. I think that men and women are created with different roles to fulfill within the overall plan of God. Having said that, I also believe that there is a tremendous variation within individual men and women. I believe that this variation, perhaps shaped in some form of the classic bell curve distribution, allows for some (perhaps a large) degree of overlap in ability to serve in various roles. Therefore, I am resistant to the idea that there needs to be or should be firm rules as to how God can use individuals according to His will. I am open to female pastors, teachers, apostles, and prophets. Also male housekeepers and primary childcare providers. However, I believe they will always be a minority because I believe, in general, males and females will tend to cluster around the norm regarding their fitness to serve in their respective roles. Obviously there is one role that will be forever bared to males (unless you are the Governor of California).
Having said all that as introduction, I would like to discuss a couple of issues I have with the way in which this passage is being parsed out in this thread.
1) Nobody seems to have addressed the issue of to whom Paul was speaking in regards to submission in the critical command passage. “WIVES, submit yourselves to your husbands.” Not husbands make sure your wives submit to you in all things and recognize your godlike authority over them. Not pastors make sure you preaching enough regarding submission. Not women make sure all the women in the church are following your idea of what submission looks like. I believe Paul is speaking to each and every wife, telling them to find the pattern of submission that works in their particular relationship. That why he doesn’t go into some big list of what submission is. It is a lot of different and sometimes contradictory things. WIVES, it is YOUR job to find what is right for you and your husband. That is what discernment is for. It is your responsibility, not your pastor’s, not your friend’s, not even your husband’s but yours alone.
Men, if you are not giving your wife the freedom and space to make a free and voluntary choice to submit to you AND, if at the same time, you are not making yourself attractive enough (in all ways) to draw that choice from her then you are sinning against her and are standing in the way of her ability to follow our Lord and you will face judgment at the throne of Christ against whom you are being measured. Which brings me to the second point I would like to raise.
2) Women, if you are going to get upset about this passage, at least get upset about the right issue. Why does Paul let you off so easy? Maybe he really does think of you as the “weaker vessel”. At least on a superficial reading, all you have to do to obey God’s command is submit to your husband. Now I don’t want to make light of how hard it can be to submit to a jerk or worse. And in the case of abuse, get the heck away. But look at what your husband is commanded to do. He is commanded to be Christ to you, to lay down his life for you. It seems to me that from an egalitarian position, I would be upset not about Paul telling me to submit to my husband, but instead about the fact that Paul seems to feel that I am not up to the much harder task that he gives to my husband. YMMV
Riley
Comment by Riley Allen — September 20, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
Thank you, John, Peggy, Dana, Scot and Michael, for your efforts to continue to support the mutuality of men-women’s relationships in Christ, in much civility. I’m personally aware of how tiring it can be to discuss this issue and even more, to live out the dynamic Spirit-filled difference Christ makes in male-female relationships, over and over and over again. From my POV, that difficulty itself points out the intransigent sinful effects of the Fall on our relationships. Only by the power of the Spirit may we live differently. It just “ain’t natural” to die to these genders, be filled with the Holy Spirit & to submit ourselves to one another. Hierarchy seems so natural, thus it’s gotta be god’s will for “ordering”, eh? After all, how could the Spirit properly order all these disorderly people if we’re all submitting in love and fellowship to one another? (We’re longing for that age when we live within the answer to that question “in Christ”!)
John, your post (and addendum) in particular reminded me of how Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to put “authority” on the woman’s head (kephale) when she is prophesying. Rather than denying that a woman’s head has authority, Paul emphasized that, contrary to popular/sin-endemic male-female paradigms he described, women are worthy of authority as “from God.” There is mutuality in woman coming from man (Gen.2), man coming from woman (every birth thereafter), and “all things come from God.”
Of course, Peggy’s, Scot’s, Dana’s & others’ points all end up in the same basket as mine, but since that Pauline usage of kephale wasn’t directly addressed, AFAICS, I thought I’d mention it!
I wouldn’t be as patient, today, in responses, so I’ll refrain from responding to those w/ whom I heartily disagree and celebrate those who wisely and patiently (today, at least!) try to be heard. Maybe another day, you can pass me the ball.
Comment by Ann F-R — September 20, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
Ok, just one response to a hair curling remark.
@Riley, wow, your remarks seem obtuse from the cultural perspective of 1st century Mediterranean society. Women already were expected to lay down their lives for their husbands and spend their existence in service to men (certainly then, and still very much, now!). The women were treated as property. The only women who weren’t dependent on men’s tolerance, money, food, shelter, etc. were prostitutes and temple priestesses.
Women, slaves, children and the poor, frankly, don’t have as far down to go to get to the self-emptying servant level as many men do. Yup, the vast majority of them were already down there. So, Paul commends the example of God-in-Christ to the men.
Shall we look at this from the upside down kingdom perspective?
Comment by Ann F-R — September 20, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
when forming one’s theology on the roles and position of women it is important to look at the whole sweep of scripture and to begin at the beginning. i’m surprised ann f-r is the first to mention genesis 2. where we first see hierarchical roles for men and women come into play is AFTER the Fall and not before. God’s original design for men and women was one that was mutual and equal not hierarchical as was the case in genesis 3. hierarchy came *as a consequence of the Fall*–it was never God’s ideal.
Comment by linda — September 21, 2010 @ 1:48 am
I think Kephale as source is a good interpretation. Especially as elsewhere Paul says man comes from woman…in other words woman is the source of man?
BTW in all the discussions about headship, don’t forget the OT woman had the right to initiate and divorce her husband if he didn’t provide her with intimacy, provision and shelter / clothing.
Comment by craig bennett — September 21, 2010 @ 3:45 am
The “source” idea doesn’t really help. Source still connotes origin and within that a sense of being “out of which” – If I am a source of my child, then my child is derivative in some way.
There is also strong scholarly consensus (ha! whatever that is, right?) that Ephesians is second century “pseudepigraphical writing” (Crossan’s big word) which domesticates Paul’s radical message of equality in service of the larger Roman culture – making Christianity and Rome get along.
I find those arguments the most convincing, personally.
Comment by Julie — September 21, 2010 @ 8:05 am
Julie,
Whaaat?! Ephesians is 2nd century pseudepigraphal? You can’t just casually lob a hand grenade in the room like that as if it is an aside.
Comment by Percival — September 21, 2010 @ 9:03 am
Aw Percival, sure I can.
Couple good books out there making that case: _In Search of Paul_ (Crossan and Reed) and _The First Paul_ (Borg and Crossan). For me, Paul becomes nearly split personality if we try to make all these teachings fit together. Makes so much more sense to consider that 2nd century disciples of Paul, in his name, wanted to massage his teachings into a more socially acceptable package.
Enjoy!
Comment by Julie — September 21, 2010 @ 9:22 am
Wow, I don’t check the blog for a day and miss a good discussion.
If I missed it has Scot chimed in at all on the subject, I read through comments but didn’t see his.
As to the translating the word kephale as “source,” I wish the author would spend more time unpacking the statement, so that we can investigate the sources she used to come to that conclusion. I really do not see convincing linguistic studies that give much credence to kephale meaning “source.” Especially against the more attested definition of “head.”
http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com
Comment by Wesley Walker — September 21, 2010 @ 9:40 am
There are some clear difficulties with basic Greek understanding. First, “one another” never meant “some specified amd exclusive people to other specified exclusice people.”
Being a Christian meant “to love one another” “to bear one another’s burdens” it die not mean “some people are to serve and bear the burdens of other people”
Who would be interested in a religion that said “some of you are to submit to others of you.” Why bother with religion when this was already stated in Aristotle?
I have noticed that Clemenet, Chrysostom and Calvin all interpret Eph 5:21 as “one another.”
Second, rosh is not usually translated by kephale when it means leader. This is contrary to fact. Therefore, the letter Grudem received from Glare must be disregarded.
Comment by Sue — September 21, 2010 @ 9:41 am
I am sorry that my blog is now disorganized as I see several references to it. I will try to pay it some attention.
But briefly,
- one another must mean mutuality in Greek, although they no doubt still held to some kind of structure within that. Perhaps it meant that a slave owner had to treat his slaves as he would be treated himself. Where does that lead?
- rosh is not usually translated by kephale in the LXX so Glare and Grudem must be disregarded
- I am not sure that arche and kephale had the meanings that are attributed in this post
- both arche and kephale could mean “beginning” perhaps that is part of the word play
- there are early church fathers who interpret kephale hierarchically and those who interpret it as beginning, or source
- It seems to be a live metaphor
- it must entail organic unity, in some passages
- but in others like Eph. 1 it does not
- kephale does not have one consistent meaning every where it is mentioned
Comment by Sue — September 21, 2010 @ 9:48 am
Hey Julie,
Sorry, my bad. I thought we were discussing the text as if it mattered. Now I see that it doesn’t. Thanks.
(Scott, is my sarcasm here civil enough?)
Comment by Percival — September 21, 2010 @ 10:31 am
Sue@59,
Insightful remarks. Reminds me of the proverbial 7yo Sunday School student who upon being taught that we are here to love and serve others, asked, “So, what are the others here for?”
Comment by Kay — September 21, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Just learning to read NT Greek now, nearly half way through introductory textbook… …able to parse out some of the more simpler constructs. But even being able to read just means you can see — nearly impossible to task to ferret out cultural idioms and connotations from ~2K and would take a lifetime of study to be able to speak with authority on the matter. And if I could start school all over again, I’d be interested in such a path, of linguistics, in understanding ancient languages.
Comment by Naum — September 21, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Julie #55 & 57,
Scholarly consensus? Borg and Crossan are two likable guys but tend to be at the center of PBS specials, not at the center of the Society for New Testament Studies. Charming? Yes. Trailblazers in Pauline Studies? Even less successful than their attempts to rebrand Jesus via the Jesus Seminar.
Comment by Alan K — September 21, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
57. Aw Percival, sure I can. Couple good books out there making that case: _In Search of Paul_ (Crossan and Reed) and _The First Paul_ (Borg and Crossan). For me, Paul becomes nearly split personality if we try to make all these teachings fit together. Makes so much more sense to consider that 2nd century disciples of Paul, in his name, wanted to massage his teachings into a more socially acceptable package.
Enjoy!
Comment by Julie — September 21, 2010 @ 9:22 am
Oh, it’s JULIE Sweeney. For a minute there you had me confused!
http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/
Comment by EricW — September 21, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Um, Eric, that’s not me. I have my name linked to my blog. I used to be Julie Bogart.
Carry on otherwise.
Comment by Julie — September 21, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
P.S. Percival, disagree with me if you like, even passionately. But don’t treat me as inferior through sarcastic discrediting of my views or intentions. How dare you! I take Scot’s welcome to express our points of view seriously. I find Crossan to be an excellent source for Pauline studies. You may not. So be it.
Comment by Julie — September 21, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Yes, I know it’s not you. I’ve read your “unplugged” blog.
Comment by EricW — September 21, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
IIRC, Andrew Lincoln who did the Word Commentary volume on Ephesians holds to non-Pauline authorship.
Comment by EricW — September 21, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
I don’t know anything about Crossan. However, when we discuss scripture, we discuss it as scripture. If you want to say it was written by a bunch of liars a hundred years later, you are saying it doesn’t matter. That poisons the conversation. If the discussion is about whether Ephesians was inspired, that’s a different discussion.
It would be like people discussing one of Obama’s policies and someone chimes in and says, “He’s not even really American anyway so his whole presidency is illegitimate.” What tone would you find as appropriate, for someone who did that in a discussion?
Comment by Percival — September 21, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
Percival:
Sausages, laws, and the canon of Scripture are things the making of which one should not too closely look into.
(“laws/sausages” is usually attributed to Otto Von Bismark)
From the vagaries of the traditional history of the canon to the radical theory of Dr. David Trobisch, the way and reasons and form in which some books made it into the canon and others did not does not fit the tidy picture many Evangelicals hold to. You can read The Biblical Canon by Lee M. McDonald (3rd edition, third printing), The Canon Debate by Lee M. McDonald and James Sanders (Editors), and The Septuagint as Christian Scripture by Martin Hengel, and if you have lots of money (or access to a seminary library), Trobisch’s The First Edition of the New Testament and his later papers on this theory.
Tolle lege!
Comment by EricW — September 21, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Forgive me for stating the obvious here. Many people here think the scriptures are sacred and inspired by God. Suggestions that it is written by liars and even comparing it to sausage might be considered offensive. That’s all I will say on this topic.
Comment by Percival — September 21, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
I had to address this:
“He is commanded to be Christ to you, to lay down his life for you. It seems to me that from an egalitarian position, I would be upset not about Paul telling me to submit to my husband, but instead about the fact that Paul seems to feel that I am not up to the much harder task that he gives to my husband.”
I do not believe men are called to “be Christ” to their wives. They are to lay down their lives for her as Christ laid His down– but this idea of “be Christ to her” has led to all kinds of abuses and idolatries. Nor is a human male up to the task. The church insists they “be Christ” to their wives and then calls them “wimpy” or “unwilling to step up” when they shrink back. The wife was given to him as his “face-to-face strong aid” (that’s what “helper suitable” in Genesis 2 appears to actually mean– to rule the Creation with him so he wouldn’t be alone), and when he rules over her, he renders himself effectively alone again. It’s lonely at the top. The man was never meant to be placed in a godlike position over the woman.
Second, the real reason Paul only told wives to “submit” may have something to do with the fact that wives in that culture were married at a very young age and without their choice. He tells the husbands to love and lay down their lives, nurture and care for their wives– but the wives didn’t ask to be in this position and all he asks of them is to submit “as to the Lord” because they do love the Lord. However, if the husbands will treat their wives as Paul says, their wives will probably learn to love them in return.
Comment by KR Wordgazer — September 22, 2010 @ 11:47 am
Regarding this:
“. . . the way and reasons and form in which some books made it into the canon and others did not does not fit the tidy picture many Evangelicals hold to.”
It doesn’t matter to me if it wasn’t “tidy.” I prefer to trust that God saw to it that one way or another, those books which I need for my guide to faith and practice, are the ones that ended up in the canon.
Comment by KR Wordgazer — September 22, 2010 @ 7:08 pm