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?

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.

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

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? :)