The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

The Importance of History

Written by: on Wednesday, September 13, 2006

I’ve been reading the recent issue of Priscilla Papers (Summer 2006). I have been struck by both Catherine Clark Kroeger and Philip B. Bayne’s use of history in their respective articles on 1 Corinthians 11. In Kroeger’s article she is looking at what kephalē, “head,” means in 1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (NASB). She uses a plethora of secular, Jewish, and early Christian historical sources to show that the conventional meaning of kephalē means “source” or “beginning,” not a hierarchal understanding of a boss or somone who has authority over other people. Bayne does the same thing in his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Using sources contemporary with Paul, he shows what Paul meant by “head” as well as the culture and custom of the day regarding how men and women should wear their hair, which has nothing to do with head coverings. He also looks at what the early Church Fathers had to say about this passage and how they interpreted it. The striking thing is the consistency of the translation of “head” in all the sources: secular, Jewish, and Christian—nowhere is kephalē translated to be an authority over another. It always means source or beginning.

One of the things that has aggravated me about Evangelicalism for the last 15 years is its ignorance regarding Christian history, and it’s arrogance in thinking it doesn’t need it. I am very happy to see Robert Webber and others working to bring Evangelicals back into the stream of our shared history instead of just looking at it as “Catholic history” we don’t need (I grew up Southern Baptist in rural Oklahoma, and this was how early Church history was referred to). I think both of these articles show how important it is for us to know how contemporary sources and the early Church used words, and how the early Church interpreted Pauline and other passages. This history shows that the complementarians are wrong in their translation of kephalē, and corrects how we also interpret head coverings and how Paul wanted men and woman to relate to each other. When we consider all of Christian history and tradition, then we have the resources we need to more correctly understand what the biblical writers were saying instead of imposing our own intepretations and world views on the text.

9 Comments »

Comment by sally

September 14, 2006 @ 2:02 am

I agree with you, but here’s the trouble; couldn’t you also argue that egalitarians ignore the history of the church in allowing women to preach?

Comment by Lori

September 14, 2006 @ 4:17 am

One of the things that has aggravated me about Evangelicalism for the last 15 years is its ignorance regarding Christian history, and it’s arrogance in thinking it doesn’t need it.

Oh, there’s a lot I could say on this subject…suffice it to say that over the years, when I’ve tried to present extra-biblical evidence, like Kroeger and Bayne have done, the universal reaction I’ve gotten from comps. has been one of disdain and anger. “We don’t need all that junk. Why can’t you just accept the plain words of the Bible?” Anybody presenting evidence from outside of the Bible was simply too “liberal,” and so, of course, they could be instantly dismissed. Indeed, one of the things that attracted me to egalitarianism was their sheer willingness to embrace biblical scholarship. Evidently I’m not the only person to notice this type of thinking, either, because there was a bestselling book a few years back entitled The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

Now, I seem to remember several entries back that somebody posted how Wayne Grudem had done an exhaustive study and combed hundreds of ancient documents and concluded that there was no evidence that kephale means “source.” Maybe Kroeger and Bayne should each send him a copy of their article? :)

Comment by Francine

September 14, 2006 @ 9:49 am

re: comment #1

Sally, actually by studying the meanings of words in the Bible and what they meant at the time they were written, coupled with knowing the history of the early church and even the writings of the church fathers, you can only draw the conclusion that women did indeed preach and were leaders in the early church.
Francine

Comment by Kathryn

September 14, 2006 @ 2:28 pm

Re: comment # 1

Point well made; however, I think the history referenced by the author is that of earliest Christian history, which would have been closest to the Apostles and the times recorded in the New Testament. Those congregations knew and understood what Paul meant by “head”. In all probability, the misunderstanding began at least a couple of centuries after the deaths of those first Christians, when people began to be further removed from the era of the first Apostles. It was around this time, because of the misunderstanding, that women began to be repressed in the church.

Comment by Kathryn

September 16, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

In the mid-1980′s I taught piano lessons in a small rural county. One of my students was a lady who, along with her husband and baby daughter, attended my church. She was at home with her child at that time, and said that the lessons and practice time were the only fun she had due, I’m sure, to the constant demands of her family. One day, she told me that she was going to have to cancel her lessons. Her husband had told her that they were having financial difficulties, and they could no longer afford the lessons. I can still hear the resentment in her voice as she said “You know, he can still go hunting, fishing, and gun-collecting; he can still have his hobbies, he can do whatever he wants to, but I have to give up my fun.” Here’s the clincher: She concluded by saying with a shrug, “But, he’s the boss”. I wanted to shout “This is a Christian marriage! There should be no such thing as ‘boss’!”, but of course I didn’t. I thought of this as soon as I read this particular blog. I have actually read in a Christian book that the man was made “head over” the woman. How many times has this story been repeated over and over in millions of homes, over many centuries, all because of the idea of husband as “head over”, or “boss over”, the wife. Of course, that phrase is not found anywhere in Scripture. Is it any wonder the home and family is in such a shape?

Comment by Jorge

September 22, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

Shawna,

Thanks for mentioning these two articles. I have not read them but now plan to track them down. I would like to know, however, whether you have read those who argue that kephale does not mean “source.” What do you think of their arguments?

Wayne Grudem cites an intersting letter he received (in 1997) from Peter G. W. Glare in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (p. 207). Glare is (was?)the current editor of the Liddell-Scott Lexicon Supplement. Glare makes the following “generalizations”: kephale “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.”

In recent commentaries on 1 Corinthians (2001), Anthony Thiselton does not believe kephale means “source.” He believes it means “pre-eminent.” David E. Garland in his commentary (2003) believes the definition “source” is “hightly suspect” (p. 515). He prefers “prominent, foremost, uppermost, pre-eminent” (p. 516).

What’s also interesting is that I. Howard Marshall in DBE says the following concerning the translation of kephale: “Attempts to weaken the sense of head to mean nothing more than “source” are not persuasive, although notions of the head as “prominent, outstanding or determinative” and thus possessing “preeminence” or functioning as “ground of being” are well founded” (p. 198).

What do you think of these findings?

Comment by Kathryn

September 23, 2006 @ 4:25 pm

Jorge, the meaning of “head” as “source” or “origin” harmonizes with Scripture themes throughout the Bible, even those teachings that do not deal directly with male/female relationships, whereas “head” as “leader” and ” authority over” violates too many of those same teachings, such as the creation account itself, the stories of Deborah, Huldah, and Priscilla, Jesus’ teaching on the last coming before the first, Paul’s practice of letting women prophesy to the church, and Peter’s teaching on the priesthood of every believer, male and female, directly before God. Although knowing Greek and Hebrew words is helpful, this is what ultimately should be our guide to Scripture interpretation: is this interpretation consistent with other teachings throughout Scripture, or does it violate those teachings?

Comment by Kathryn

September 23, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

We still need to understand the Greek and Hebrew words. Knowing the meaning of “head” and “submit” provides a solid foundation of Biblical egalitarian teaching.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

September 25, 2006 @ 1:36 pm

Jorge, as Kathryn said kephale being translated as origin and source is consistent throughout both the New Testament and Septuagint (and as Dr. Kroeger’s article shows it also consisitent with secular Greek usage). I also think it needs to be that way not to do harm to trinitarianism: Christ is not subjected and subordinate to God the Father. The complementarians can run in all the circles they want, but at the end of the day, their interpretation borders on heresy (Arianism), which is why none of the early Church Fathers wanted kephale to be mistranslated as “authority over.” For me the correct translation of this word in critical for trinitarian theology. May be the complementarians should be as concerned with Christology as they are “the proper place” of women.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 336 access attempts in the last 7 days.