The CBE Scroll

Comment by richard

January 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

Liddell Scott is a lexicon for classical Greek more so than for koine Greek. BDAG (the lexicon for classical Greek) doesn’t offer this definition. I am by no means trained in Greek, but this does offer some explanation to your question.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

Are both Liddell Scott and BDAG lexicons for classical Greek? What is the difference between Liddell Scott and the BDAG?

Is Bauer’s the same as the BDAG? If so, here is some criticism of it, from Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen’s Women, Authority, and the Bible, (100-103).

Under section two, where Bauer gives ’superior rank’ as a meaning for kephale, he cites only two references from secular Greek. One comes from Zosimus and is dated A.D. 500 - at least 400 years after the New Testament was written. (Our question is not what kephale meant in A.D. 500 but rather what Paul meant when he used kephale when writing his letters to the churches in the first century.) Bauer’s only other reference to secular Greek to support the meaning of ’superior rank’ is to Artemidorus in the second century, where kephale is used as a symbol of the father. What Artemidorus said (Lib K, chapter 2, paragraph 6) was ‘He [the father] was the cause (aitos) of the life and of the light for the dreamer [the son] just as the head (kephale) is the cause of the life and the light of all the body.’ He also said ‘the head is to be likened to parents because the head is the cause [source] of life.’ Bauer’s reference may be an example of a lexicographer reading his own cultural understanding (i.e. fathers have ’superior rank’) into the text…

Those who, like Bauer, insist that kephale means ’superior rank’ say that since kephale is used with that meaning in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, that meaning must have been familiar to Greek-speaking people in New Testament times. The facts do not support this assumption.

The Septuagint was prepared by a large group of Hebrew Greek scholars for the thousands of Jewish people who lived outside of Palestine. For these Jews, Greek was their first and sometimes only language, and they could not have read a Hebrew Old Testament even if one had been available. They used the Septuagint in their synagogues. For all the early churches outside Palestine, the Septuagint translation was the Old Testament, for it was written in the only language they knew.

We studied all the instances in which the Hebrew word rosh (meaning ‘head’) appears in the Old Testament and how it was translated in the Septuagint. Rosh occurs approximately 600 times and the Aramaic word resh occurs fourteen times. Usually rosh or resh simply means physical head of a person or animal, the same meaning that the Greek work kephale usually has in the New Testament. In the 239 instances when rosh refers to a physical head, the Septuagint translators nearly always translated it with kephale. But like our English word ‘head,’ rosh sometimes had metaphorical or figurative meanings, including leader or someone in authority, or beginning, as in rosh hashshanan (Ezek 40:1 ‘at the beginning of the year’).

About 180 times, the Hebrew word rosh, meaning ‘head,’ clearly refers to a ‘chief something’ - a chief man, chief city, chief nation, chief priest, that is, the leader or authority figure in a group. Apparently, this meaning for rosh was as common in ancient Hebrew as it is in English today. But, as we have seen from the Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie lexicon, that was not a common meaning in the Greek language of New Testament times. The findings of these lexicographers are confirmed when we examine the Greek words that the translators of the Septuagint used when the Hebrew word rosh means ‘leader’ or ‘chief.’ In the 180 instances when rosh means ‘leader’ or ‘chief,’ the Septuagint translators rarely used kephale. Archon, meaning ‘ruler,’ ‘commander’ or ‘leader,’ was used 109 times (about 60 percent). Apparently the translators believed that archon rather than kephale more accurately conveyed the meaning of the Hebrew rosh when it meant ‘ruler’ or ‘leader.’

Although archon was the most common word used for rosh when it meant ‘chief’ or ‘authority,’ it was not the only one. The translators occasionally used thirteen other words. Some appear in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, where heads appears three times. ‘Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men, according to your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads. And you answered me, “The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.” So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you.’

Obviously ‘heads’ in this passage meant ’superior rank’ or ‘authority.’ But the Septuagint translators did not use kephale in any of the three places. Instead, they used the Greek words hegoumenous, hegeisthai and chiliarchos. The verb hegeomai means ‘to rule’ or ‘have dominion.’ The noun chiliarchos means ‘to be a leader,’ ‘a commander of a thousand soldiers.’ Among the fourteen words used to translate rosh, kephale does appear eighteen times. But these include six passages that have variant readings. Four others involve a head-tail metaphor that would not make sense without the use of head in contrast to tail. For example, Deuteronomy 28:44 says, ‘He shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.’

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

Here’s a comment from Philip Barton Payne on the Mickelsen study:

The Mickelsens actually understate their case from Greek usage. Including its 1968 supplement, the Liddell and Scott lexicon lists forty-eight separate English equivalents of figurative meanings of kephale. None of them implies leader, authority, first or supreme. To confirm that ‘authority’ was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent speicalists in ancient Greek literature (David Armstrong of the University of Texas at Austin and Michael Wigodsky and Mark Edwards of Stanford University). They all agreed that the idea of ‘authority’ was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

I just found this in Women, Authority, and the Bible (97) by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen:

The most complete Greek-English lexicon (covering Homeric, classical and koine Greek) in current existence is a two-volume work of more than 2,000 pages compiled by Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie… The most common lexicon… in our day is the koine lexicon… commonly known as Bauer’s.

So this means Liddell Scott is both classical and koine and that Bauer’s is koine.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 8, 2008 @ 5:56 pm

In my biblical Greek class (and for those who might not know: koine Greek is the name of biblical Greek - and it is different from classical Greek) at seminary - we learned kephale the first quarter and the only definition given for the word is ‘head.’ The book is written by William D. Mounce, who is a complementarian, on the board for the ESV translation. His book Basics of Biblical Greek is one of the most common textbook for Greek students in seminaries. That might explain a lot.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

He doesn’t have any figurative meanings for kephale? Just the physical ‘head?’

Comment by fjs

January 8, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

Carrie Miles has an interesting take on head:

So when Paul describes the husband as ‘head’ of his wife as Christ is head of the church, he draws not on a metaphor of authority but on the metaphor of the head as the source of unity. The husband does this not by leading his wife and certainly not by ruling her but rather by nurturing and serving her in such a way that they grow together head and body into one flesh.

This definition is interpretively solid in context and relates accurately to the meaning of the text. It makes sense out of Paul’s comment when he switches to the oneness of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5:31:

‘As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.’

Comment by fjs

January 8, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

The quote is from Carrie Mile’s article, ‘Who Is My Mother and Who Are My Brothers? Jesus and Family Values’ on the CBE website.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

But why the claim by some people that there is no evidence that kephale meant ’source’ when Liddell Scott lists it? In addition, these same people claim it means ‘leader’ or ‘authority’ yet Liddell Scott doesn’t list that as one of its meanings. Why do these people say what they do in light of this?

Comment by richard

January 9, 2008 @ 6:50 am

It seems that Philo, who was a contemporary of Paul, used kephale as ‘head’ rather than ’source.’

Comment by Liz

January 9, 2008 @ 8:42 am

Why do ‘they’ do this? Better to ask ‘them’ as I’m sure you have! We do each choose our own experts and feel more comfortable with translations which back up our preconceived notions, so why would convinced complementarians take any notice of a commentator who disagreed with their beliefs?

It is illogical to us who believe/understand differently and we get frustrated when people don’t ‘get it’ but unless someone is questioning their belief they won’t be in a position to look at another viewpoint, however sound the scholarship may be.

Comment by fjs

January 9, 2008 @ 9:32 am

Did Philo use head as ‘first,’ or as ‘leader?’

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

Richard, can you give the exact reference of Philo’s to look up? I want to check out the year and the sentence that he uses kephale in. Thanks. If you could put a link here it would be really useful.

Comment by Lori

January 9, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

See comment 77692.

Why do ‘they’ do this? Better to ask ‘them’ as I’m sure you have! We do each choose our own experts and feel more comfortable with translations which back up our preconceived notions, so why would convinced complementarians take any notice of a commentator who disagreed with their beliefs?

Bingo! My dear, you just said in a paragraph what I was going to say in four words: because they want to. It really is as simple as that. You can throw around Greek definitions from now until the Lord comes back, but no dyed-in-the-wool patriarch will ever accept it because they don’t want to. Their entire worldview depends on keeping women subordinate, so for every bit of proof you offer they will quote some ‘expert’ of their own that will support their own view. I mean, look at the whole ‘Jesus is subordinate in the Trinity, so women must be subordinate on earth’ controversy. Wayne Grudem says it, so that means it’s gospel truth for his followers. End of story.

Comment by richard

January 9, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

Again, I am well out of my league on when I point to the Greek, but when I hear other arguments made, I still try to weigh them with what knowledge I have. I’ve read Webb’s book ‘Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals,’ as well as Giles ‘The Trinity and Subordinationism.’ They seem like the strongest arguments I’ve heard so far, but I did not find them convincing. I only say that to show that I really have tried to see an egalitarian point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

Anyway, I did a search in Bibleworks on the lemma of kephale, and I’ve posted the Greek/English here.

Note that I am posting this on my own, and my comments should be seen as coming from me, and not on behalf of the website on which I’ve posted this document.

While I appreciate the interaction, I likely won’t be able to continue, since this is more technical than I am capable. However, I felt that the initial post was an attempt to be more provocative than informative, which is why I posted what I did. Again, thanks for the interaction!

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 8:18 pm

When Paul says in Ephesians 5:23: ‘For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior’ (NIV) he defines precisely what he means by ‘head’ when he says ‘his body, of which he is the Savior.’

I don’t think there can be any argument that Paul uses the term ‘head’ in regards to husbands in a figurative manner as being the wife’s savior. But he is also comparing the wife to being the husband’s body, and to understand what Paul meant by that we need to understand what the people at that time understood as the relationship between the physical head and the body.

I know that many of the ancients (including the Greeks - although I don’t know the exact time frame) considered the heart, not the head, to the be seat of decision making because they understood that a calm heart rate led to less emotional decision making. So I don’t believe that Paul was referring to the husband as being the wife’s decision maker.

Bilezikian in Beyond Sex Roles says that the Greeks of that time saw the head as being the source of nourishment for the body, so perhaps that is what Paul means when he refers to husbands as being the ‘head’ of their wives.

So how did Paul see the head’s function in relation to the body?

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 8:48 pm

Does Philo use the Greek word kephale for each use of the term ‘head?’ Or are other words being translated as ‘head?’

Also, Philo was from Alexandria in Egypt. How similar was his usage of Greek words to Paul’s?

And, if ‘leader or authority’ was a common metaphorical usage of kephale, why didn’t Liddell Scott pick up on this? Or were they only creating a Greek lexicon for the Greek spoken in the direct vicinity of Greece, rather than Greek spoken by someone living in Egypt?

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

Is the word kephale the same as in Richard’s document - κεφαλὴ? I can’t read Greek but this is the closest Greek word in his document to kephale.

Here’s the quote from his document:

1:61 But as the head is the chief of all the aforementioned parts of an animal, so is Esau the chief of this race, whose name is at one time interpreted ‘an oak,’ and at another, ‘a thing made.’

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

Richard, thanks for the link. I appreciate it. That was nice of you.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

Why would someone say that kephale can’t mean ’source’ when a reference book says it can? It would be a matter of foot-in-mouth disease. I mean, you could be so easily disproved that it’s embarrassing. Why would someone subject themselves voluntarily to that kind of humiliation?

I think what’s happened is that someone said there was no proof that kephale ever meant ’source’ and everyone else just repeated it - not knowing that there actually was evidence that it could mean ’source.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 9, 2008 @ 11:18 pm

This issue of kephale and the lexicons has been well discussed/hashed over in some of Grudem’s many appendices, available by googling ‘Grudem recovering appendix.’ Sorry - I know that doesn’t sound too great but it is in the appendix of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW) - what can I do? There are three parts and these can be accessed by links at the top. Some of this study is also presented in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. The way I understand it LSJ is not entirely complete. It does not reference every work in Greek. As has been pointed out, if you look at kephale in the LSJ it does not mention authority or leader. If you look at caput in Latin you will see a very large section for leader. So there is quite a contrast between Greek and Latin.

There is also a contrast between Hebrew and Greek. It is quite complex.

Even in Hebrew, ‘head’ could mean head of a tribe, or also the beginning as in the beginning of wisdom. Also later in Greek, we have Adam, the kehpale of the human race. To my mind, the first in order, but not the ruler. In fact, when kephale is translated into English as ‘ruler,’ one has to ask if this is always accurate.

In any case, LSJ did not mention Philo. There is also a mention in Plutarch of the general of an army being the kephale. But this is not the ordinary use of the word. In fact, kephale is used by Arrian around the same time, in Tactics, for the right hand phalanx of the army, and in Job 1:17, kephale is the raiding party.

The meaning ’source of a river’ is also possible but not terribly common. Ultimately Al Wolters, also a complementarian, wrote to Grudem and pointed out rightly that ’source’ is a meaning of kephale in the Greek lexicons in other European languages, but then Wolters suggested that maybe this also had come from influence from another language.

There is also some disagreement as to where the reasoning part was for the Greeks - sometimes, in the heart or lungs, but for Philo in the head. But we have to ask if this is relevant. Is God the reasoning part of Christ, and is Christ the sensation part of God?

Or is God the first cause, the eternal progenitor? It is also worth knowing that for classical Greeks the sperm was stored in the head. And, Zeus gave birth to Athena from his head.

There is so much more. In my view the studies have shown that ruler is a possible but not very likely meaning for head in the New Testament. Actually, I don’t think it is possible because of the context. However, here is a passage that Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), De Recte Fide ad Pulch. 2.3, 268.) used to show that kephale means ruler. See what you think.

The one of the earth and dust has become to us the first head (kephale) of the race, that is ruler (arche): but since the second Adam has been named Christ, he was placed as head (kephale), that is ruler (arche) of those who through him are being transformed unto him into incorruption through sanctification by the Spirit. Therefore he on the one hand is our ruler,(arche) that is head (kephale), in so far as he has appeared as a man; indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from him. But that the head (kephale) signifies the ruler (arche), the fact that the husband is said to be the head (kephale) of the wife confirms the sense for the truth of doubters: for she has been taken from him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a ‘head’ accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.

This is a translation by Grudem. But, in fact, arche (αρχη) does not mean ruler. It has two meanings: beginning, origin, foundation, source, first principle; and place of sovereignty, power. So, it is not usually used of a person, although it can refer to power. But, here it refers to Adam. Is Adam our origin or our ruler? Here is another way to translate the passage:

Therefore of our race he became first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the Spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being. Yet he though God by nature, has himself a generating head, the heavenly Father, and he himself, though God according to his nature, yet being the Word, was begotten of him. Because head means source, He establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore as God according to His nature, the one Christ and Son and Lord has as his head the heavenly Father, having himself become our head because he is of the same stock according to the flesh.

Kroeger Clark translated it this way. It simply makes more sense to me.

I don’t think there is going to be a tie breaker. For myself, I can say with full conviction that head does not necessarily mean ‘leader’ or ‘ruler.’ Is it possible to prove that it can never mean leader? I don’t know. I think it is clear that in this passage Cyril of ALexandria uses it to mean that they are of the same kind of nature.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 9, 2008 @ 11:29 pm

There’s something strange about the document (referred to in comments 77716 and 77721). It seems like the first word of every segment is in Greek, but the rest of the paragraph is not in Greek. Was there a copy error?

For example, 1:100 says monos, which means only or alone… and then the rest of the paragraph is jibberish.

Comment by Suzanne

January 9, 2008 @ 11:44 pm

I only see gibberish too.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

Suzanne, thanks for the information on kephale. Now I’m beginning to see why people say that it has to be understood by looking at the context that it is used in. I’m also beginning now to see how complex the issue is. You gave me good insight.

And thanks to both Mary Ann and Suzanne for pointing out what I thought I also saw - that most of what I thought was Greek was not really Greek. It looks like another language.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 12:09 am

Suzanne and Mary Ann, have you studied the Mickelsen study on kephale in the Septuagint? If so, what is your take on the study? How do you feel about it? Thanks.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 10, 2008 @ 12:09 am

Regarding comment 77655, Mounce only gives one meaning for kephale in my Greek textbook. The meaning is ‘head.’ This is strange since for most Greek words, Mounce gives more than one ’sense’ (meaning) of the word.

Thanks, Suzanne, for the great input (see comment 77727). I love the translation you quoted from Kroeger Clark! I also wanted to add that the two meanings I learned when I had arche as a vocabulary word were ‘beginning’ and ‘ruler.’ I think ‘beginning’ is the primary sense for the word ‘arche.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 12:59 am

αρχη is a feminine abstract noun meaning the ‘beginning’ or the ‘over all.’ It only means ‘ruler’ if you think of how you can use the word ‘office’ to mean the person in the office. If someone says ‘the office wants you’ that means the person in the office. It really doesn’t have as a primary meaning ‘ruler.’ There is a word for ruler, αρχων, which is a masculine word for a person who rules.

The jibberish above is an encoding problem. It wasn’t in unicode. However, I have no doubt that Philo used the word kephale as he did. But it is rare.

I just don’t think God meant, ‘I do the thinking for Christ, and Christ does the thinking for man, and man does the thinking for woman.’ It seems more likely that ‘Christ is of the same nature as God, man is of the same nature as Christ (since he became human) and woman is of the same nature as man.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 2:42 am

Have you studied the Mickelsen study on kephale in the Septuagint?

No. Sorry.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 10, 2008 @ 3:05 am

Hi JLP, I have not read the Mickelsen study of kephale (though I will see if my seminary library has a copy of the book tomorrow and then I could contribute something more meaningful here). However, from what I’ve read of what you explained in comment 77645, I really appreciate Alvera’s insights. It seems very useful and noteworthy that kephale was not used as the translation for the times when the meaning ‘commander’ or ‘leader’ was trying to be communicated in the Septuagint translation. I’d really like to read more about this. It’s very interesting!

I am just now realizing that the word arche (αρχη) in comment 77727 is not the same as the archon that Alvera refers to (discussed in comment 77645). αρχη means ‘beginning,’ whereas αρχων (a different word) means ‘ruler,’ ‘official,’ ‘authority,’ or ‘judge.’ I am assuming that Alvera’s study is referring to αρχων (can you confirm that, JLP?). If that’s true, then that clarifies a lot of confusion for me! Thanks.

Comment by richard

January 10, 2008 @ 4:38 am

Most papyri discoveries have been in Egypt since it is only there that the climate allows for their preservation. Until papyri were found in trash dumps of people’s grocery lists, etc. New Testament Greek was thought to be some sort of ‘Holy Spirit Greek!’ Once other papyri were found, it was then known that the Greek of the New Testament was a common dialect in use at the time. So the fact that Philo was in Alexandria offers good evidence that the Greek he spoke was extremely similar to Paul’s Greek.

Regarding the previous comment on the difference between αρχη/arche and αρχων/archon, they are indeeed the same word, only different forms. arche is the nominative singular (used as the subject), while archon is the genitive plural (possesive). Example usage would be something like this:

Nominative singular: The ruler/αρχη/arche wrote me a speeding ticket.

Genitive plural: The ability to create laws is the prerogative of the rulers/αρχων/archon.

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 9:59 am

Richard, I am sorry but you can’t do that. You are driving without a license!

Comment by HKH

January 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am

I’m sorry Suzanne. But could you explain to me what you mean by saying that Richard is driving without a license? You may both know what you mean, but I don’t.

Does he not have the Greek training of some of you others or do you mean something else? Thanks.

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

I don’t have a polytonic keyboard during the day, but… maybe Richard can correct this if he sees it. Otherwise I will post the correct forms tonight.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

Mary Ann, unfortunately I can’t answer your question. The Mickelsen study is on pages 97-110 of the book Women, Authority, and the Bible, edited by Alvera Mickelsen. It’s put out by IVP Press.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

I thought you might find this study on kephale interesting. It’s from pages 103-104 of Women, Authority, and the Bible. It’s by the Mickelsen study.

That leaves only eight instances (out of 180) where the Septuagint translators clearly chose to use kephale as a translation for ro’sh, when ro’sh meant ‘chief’ or ‘leader.’ Septuagint translators used fourteen different Greek words to translate ro’sh:

1. archon (meaning ‘ruler,’ ‘commander,’ ‘leader’), 109 times

2. archegos (’captain,’ ‘leader,’ ‘chief,’ ‘prince’), 10 times

3. arche (’authority,’ ‘magistrate,’ ‘officer’), 9 times

4. hegeomai (’to be a leader,’ ‘to rule/have dominion’), 9 times

5. protos (’first,’ ‘foremost’), 6 times

6. patriarches (’father/chief of a race,’ ‘patriarch’), 3 times

7. chiliarches (’commander’), 3 times

8. archiphules (’chief of a tribe’), 2 times

9. archipatriotes (’head of a family’), 1 time

10. archo (verb; ‘ruler,’ ‘to be ruler of’), 1 time

11. megas, megale, mega (’great,’ ‘mighty,’ ‘important’), 1 time

12. proegeomail (’take the lead,’ ‘go first,’ ‘lead the way’), 1 time

13. prototokos (’firstborn,’ ‘first in rank’), 1 time

14. kephale (where head can mean ‘top’ or ‘crown’), 8 times; kephale (in ‘head-tail’ metaphor), 4 times; kepahle (where manuscripts have variant readings), 6 times

ro’sh (not translated), 6 times

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Richard, are you saying that the material found written in Greek in Alexandria has been compared against the Greek spoken by the Jews living in the areas that Paul was writing his letters to and the metaphorical language has been found to be similar?

Is there any evidence that kephale was being the used in same way in Alexandria as it was in the areas that Paul was writing his letters to?

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 9:54 pm

I was hoping Richard would take the time to check what he had said in a dictionary. However, he has made it clear in his first comment that he has not studied Greek so I must accept his comment on the meaning of arche as an expression of innocent enthusiasm.

There are, as I said, two distinct words:

ἡ ἀρχή:a feminine abstract noun, for ‘beginning,’ ‘first cause,’ ‘authority,’ ‘official’ (genitive: τῶν ἀρχῶν)

ὁ ἄρχων: a masculine participle of αρχω (’to begin a process’ or ‘rule’) with a genitive form τῶν ἀρχόντων. This means the ‘person who rules.’

There is no possible way that any reader of Greek could confuse these two words. Besides the fact that there is a circumflex on the omega in the genitive of arche, there is also the fact that no one reading Greek refers to a word without its article, and so the error is impossible.

However, this has drawn my attention to Grudem’s study again. Grudem on arche:

…when the Hebrew term ro’sh means ’source’ or ‘beginning’ (of rivers), the Septuagint translators used another term, arche, ’source,’ ‘beginning,’ not kephale, ‘head.’

This is also the case when referring to a related idea, the beginning point of something, such as the beginning of a night watch (Judges 7:19; Lamentations 2:19), or the beginning of a period of time (Isaiah 40:21; 41:4, 26: 48:16; 1 Chronicles 16:7, etc.).

This is interesting in light of the use of kephale in Orphic Fragments 21a, where kephale seems to mean ‘beginning’ or ‘first in a series’ (see below). If this meaning was commonly recognized at the time of the LXX, then kephale could also have been used in these texts, but arche was preferred by the translators.

I conclude from this that Grudem believes that the primary sense of arche is ‘origin.’ Here he simply says that arche is prefered for the meaning of beginning.

Grudem then says:

…archon was the common word that literally meant ‘leader…’

In fact, the most common word for ruler, the one that literally meant ‘ruler,’ was archon. It is not at all surprising that in contexts where the Hebrew word for head meant ‘ruler,’ it was frequently translated by archon.

The fact that a word that literally meant ‘ruler,’ ‘authority’ (archon) should be used much more often than a word that metaphorically meant ‘ruler,’ ‘authority’ (kephale) should not be surprising - it is only surprising that people have made an argument of it at all.

Here Grudem argues that archon means ‘ruler’ and ‘authority.’ Archon is the simplest way to say ‘leader.’

Later Grudem writes on arche:

…the word arche can mean either ‘beginning’ or ‘ruler,’ ‘authority.’

arche usually means ‘beginning’ or ‘first cause,’ ‘place of authority,’ ‘the office.’ But, just as in English you can say the ‘authorities’ so you can say in Greek ἁι ἀρχαι. But I don’t think that you can say that Adam is the ἀρχη means Adam is the authority over the human race. That just doesn’t make sense to me. Adam is the origin or beginning of the human race.

Then Grudem translates the text from Cyril of Alexandria:

…the one of the earth and dust has become (gevgonen) to us the first head of the race, that is ruler (αρχη): but since the second Adam has been named Christ, he was placed as head (κεφαλη), that is ruler (αρχη) of those who through him are being transformed unto him into incorruption through sanctification by the Spirit. Therefore he on the one hand is our ruler (αρχη), that is head, in so far as he has appeared as a man; indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from him. But that the head signifies the ruler (αρχη), the fact that the husband is said to be the head of the wife confirms the sense for the truth of doubters: for she has been taken from him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a ‘head’ accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.

Personally I think it is clear that here both arche and kephale refer to ‘origin’ or ‘beginning’ and not ‘ruler.’ This makes sense out of kinship.

Here is another example from Philo, incidentally:

And of all the members of the clan here described Esau is the progenitor, the head as it were of the whole creature (LCL, vol. 4, 489)

I have come to the conclusion myself that ‘head’ is intended to mean progenitor. I find that this best fits the various texts which refer to Adam as being born first. Since woman is obviously the mother of man, I believe the text is making the relationship reciprocal, making man the progenitor of woman, as woman is the mother of man. And this is to teach the interdependence of man and woman. I believe that the notion of final decision maker and ruler to be out of place.

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

My link is broken, but I copied from Grudem’s Appendix of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (A,B,C).

Comment by tiro

January 10, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

I haven’t read all of the posts. But, has anyone pointed out that contextually, 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 are using them differently. In Ephesians the wife is told to view the husband as her head, and the husband is told to view the wife as his body. Thus the metaphor is about the interdependence of the head and body, which leads to the end where he speaks of the two becoming one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11 on the other hand is making a chronological listing of events and the relationship of two in in. All humans came into being through Christ, the first woman came into being from the body of the man, Christ the Messiah was sent into the world through the work of the Father. Something like that. And, there is a certain kind of honor and dependence of the one on the other.

Thus in Ephesians I would say that there is strictly a head/body metaphor… kephale as physical head. But in Corinthians the use of head is more in line with ‘origin’ or something similar, one thing coming through the help of another…

Comment by jlp

January 11, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

Suzanne, I really don’t understand 77786. I have no understanding of Greek. Could you make it simpler? Thanks.

Comment by fjs

January 11, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

Thanks, Tiro. that is what I was trying to articulate in an earlier post and you did so much better. Context is highly important in the determination of word meanings.

Comment by jlp

January 11, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

Suzanne, in comment 77822 I’m having a hard time distinguishing between your argument and Grudem’s argument and am having a hard time following the explanation of the Greek grammar. My knowledge of any type of grammar isn’t very high.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 2:15 am

I have provided these quotes from Grudem because I have the impression that he, at first, claims that arche means ‘beginning’ and archon means ‘ruler,’ but then he goes on to say later that arche means both ‘beginning’ and ‘ruler.’

While this is not technically false, in fact, arche means ‘beginning’ and has, as a very minor meaning, through association of authority with the person in authority, the meaning of ‘ruler.’ It would not be a common meaning of arche. However, archon is the common, very common, word for ruler.

Why didn’t the quote from Cyril use archon if Cyril meant that Adam was the ‘ruler’ of the human race? Because Adam was not the ruler, but he was the ‘origin,’ the ‘progenitor,’ the arche.

Then Grudem goes on to say that when ‘head’ is used in association with arche, ‘head’ can mean ‘ruler.’ This is counterintuitive, surely, if Adam was the ‘ruler,’ the word would have to be archon.

I guessed that maybe this argument of Grudem’s caused Richard to completely confuse the two different words - arche and archon. It seems to me that Richard thought that they were the same word with the same meaning. Presumably Richard has read the kephale study, but maybe he has not. I am trying to understand how Richard, who supposedly has access to studies on kephale confused these two words.

Much of this has been hashed out over the years with the conclusion that you cannot prove that kephale does not mean ‘authority,’ but you can certainly say that ‘origin’ is very possible and seems the most likely from the context. Especially since you cannot show in any way that the woman has the authority of the husband on her head in 1 Corinthians 11:10. That is not a linguistically possible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10.

I’ll try to have another run at showing the mistake Richard made in Greek.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 2:53 am

I wrote:

αρχη is a feminine abstract noun meaning the ‘beginning’ or the ‘over all.’ It only means ‘ruler’ if you think of how you can use the word ‘office’ to mean the person in the office. If someone says ‘the office wants you’ that means the person in the office. It really doesn’t have as a primary meaning ‘ruler.’ There is a word for ruler, αρχων, which is a masculine word for a person who rules.

Then Richard wrote:

Regarding the previous comment on the difference between αρχη/arche and αρχων/archon, they are indeeed the same word, only different forms. arche is the nominative singular (used as the subject), while archon is the genitive plural (possesive). Example usage would be something like this:

Nominative singular: The ruler/αρχη/arche wrote me a speeding ticket.

Genitive plural: The ability to create laws is the prerogative of the rulers/αρχων/archon.

What Richard wrote is complete and utter nonsense, and I am up late trying to explain why.

Richard, did you get this from your software program? Is it okay to search for words in a software program if you don’t know Greek? Software searches may have spelled the end of scholarship in Greek as far as I am concerned. Actually, I blame the people who proliferate this stuff.

So then I wrote:

ἡ ἀρχή: a feminine abstract noun, for ‘beginning,’ ‘first cause,’ ‘authority,’ ‘official’ (genitive: τῶν ἀρχῶν)

ὁ ἄρχων: a masculine participle of αρχω (’to begin a process’ or ‘rule’) with a genitive form τῶν ἀρχόντων. This means the ‘person who rules.’

Let me try again.

ἡ ἀρχή: (arche) is a feminine abstract noun, for ‘beginning,’ ‘first cause,’ ‘authority,’ ‘official’ (it has the genitive or possessive form τῶν ἀρχῶν/archôn)

ὁ ἄρχων: (archon) is a masculine participle of αρχω (’to begin a process’ or ‘rule’) with a possessive form τῶν ἀρχόντων. This means the ‘person who rules.’

Nobody who reads Greek is going to mistake the feminine abstract word arche with the masculine word for a person, archon, no matter what the forms look like. Who confuses the words ‘he leaves the room’ with ‘the leaves fell in the fall?’ It just isn’t going to happen.

Even though there is a form of arche which looks the same as archon, they could never be confused because they would be preceded by an article (the) which in one case would be feminine and in the other case masculine, along with other differences.

Maybe Richard will just come back and admit that there are two different words. Anyone with a Greek lexicon can see that they are two different words.

Likewise, his enthusiasm for the Egyptian papyri has little to contribute to this discussion.

This is beginning to sound like the time when Grudem went to the Colorado Springs meeting on May 27, 1997 with a draft claiming that adelphoi cannot mean ‘brothers and sisters’ even though ‘brothers and sisters’ the first meaning in the LSJ. He hadn’t checked. I have always wondered how he could explain that. Did he ever admit to his colleagues whether he had drafted the entire list without reference to the lexicons?

Comment by SSM

January 12, 2008 @ 6:28 am

Hello all. I am rather new to these discussions and have never been to any Bible college. Just an observation while reading - how do egalitarians treat Grudem’s Systematic Theology (I cant find any other theology book). I view it as suspicious as he picks and chooses his interpretations and sources. My husband thinks he offers many different interpretive options and is a useful source (forgive the pun!) of information. I think if one part is biased, then the whole will be biased.

Hasn’t Rebecca Merrill Groothuis commented extensively on ‘head’ somewhere?

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 6:44 am

Thanks so much, Suzanne. Now I get it. I know it must have taken a lot on work on your part. It really expanded my understanding. Thanks a lot!

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 7:26 am

SSM, here are some quotes from some authors on ‘head.’

I believe Suzanne also has some comments on ‘head’ on her website, in one of her blogs.

In addition, Michael Kruse comments on it extensively here.

Comment by SSM

January 12, 2008 @ 7:40 am

JLP, thanks for the links. They are very helpful.

I wonder about the application of husbands as head/source. Is this a culturally-specific comment about husbands being the financial source for the family? Is there a trans-cultural application for husbands and wives (i.e. how do we apply it now?)

Comment by Jackie

January 12, 2008 @ 9:00 am

Although archon was the most common word used for rosh when it meant ‘chief’ or ‘authority,’ it was not the only one. The translators occasionally used thirteen other words. Some appear in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, where ‘head’ appears three times. ‘Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men, according to your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads. And you answered me, “The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.” So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you.’=

Obviously ‘heads’ in this passage meant ’superior rank’ or ‘authority.’ But the Septuagint translators did not use kephale in any of the three places. Instead, they used the Greek words hegoumenous, hegeisthai and chiliarchos. The verb hegeomai means ‘to rule’ or ‘have dominion.’ The noun chiliarchos means ‘to be a leader,’ ‘a commander of a thousand soldiers.’ Among the fourteen words used to translate rosh, kephale does appear eighteen times. But these include six passages that have variant readings. Four others involve a head-tail metaphor that would not make sense without the use of head in contrast to tail. For example, Deuteronomy 28:44 says, ‘He shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.’

I have to say I disagree with this assumption. I’ve read this assumption several times, but not once have I see the underlying assumption tested. What does the structure of the tribes at the time? How did they view ‘head.’ Take the difference in kingship between England and Scotland, for instance. It drove King James’ English courtiers nuts that his Scot subjects treated him like a regular guy… and vice versa. The underlying issue was how the two group viewed ‘king.’ In Scotland, the king was ‘first amoung equals’ while in England, the king was the God-ordained leader of the country. Indeed, in many tribal societies (which arguably Scotland was with its clan system), being named ‘leader’ meant more that one of representative, not that one had absolute rule.

So anyway, before we can make a determination of what head and tail means, we first have to decide how the society functioned and whether we are dealing with a clan-type kingship or a Sun king absolute ruler situation. Then of course there is the whole idiom and not necessarily meaning what the individual worlds mean.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

SSM, to be honest, I don’t have an answer to your question (see comment 77855). I have thought about it though. But, at this point I can honestly say I don’t have a good answer. Perhaps someone else does.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

Jackie, if Adam is the head of the human race, we really don’t need to worry about the cultural application. Adam is dead. He is the head or the ‘origin’ of the human race. I don’t really worry at all about how man is ruler or woman, he just isn’t, that is the curse.

My tentative views are this. Woman has the reproductive capacity. She has the power of veto over sex. In a very basic way she has something that man wants. Lots of women feel disempowered, or overpowered, of course, as I did. However, a man feels this too.

So… the woman who marries, the wife, owes it to her husband to have children for him, for them both, equally (I don’t mean if it is medically bad for her, but otherwise). The wife shares her reproductive capacity with her husband on equal terms. She has children with him, she acknowledges that they are his children and together they have equal parental rights. She is the mother with full rights as mother and she acknowledges him as the progenitor. She respects his equal rights.

This means that women who want independence from men are going against Scripture, women who want abortions, or divorce their husbands, taking the children.

Not that there are not situations where these things happen, but in general, the wife honors and respects the husband as father. It is really about acknowledging the full partnership and interdependence of man and woman. That is one application that seems plausible to me. I think it calls for inclusion of men into the family in a deep way, that women should have tenderness toward men.

But, of course, if the man is acting as boss, or the ruler, he blocks the normal function of a couple loving each other. This is the curse.

I haven’t written anything very useful about kephale before. To me, it isn’t a technical translation issue, because I would just translate it as head. It is a matter of interpretation. But clearly, it is not cut and fried - head is ruler - that just isn’t so. kephale means the origin or head of the line to me.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

On systematic theology, I personally do not believe that subordination in the Trinity is a historic belief, nor do I think that historically the Trinity was compared to the male-female relationship.

The simple reason is that the Vulgate and some early Reformation Bibles (Olivetan) said that the curse of Eve was that she would be submitted to her husband. That means that up until after the Reformation, theologians believed that woman was subordinated by the curse. Therefore, the subordination of woman came about through sin, the sin of Eve.

So, in this view, Christ could not be compared to woman, as having the same subordinate position, because Christ does not come into submission through his own sin.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

Jackie, it seems like you are asking a lot of questions at once. Can you narrow it down to one? Thanks.

Comment by Sarah

January 12, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

I am a first-time responder to this blog, but have been following it for some time.

Keep up the good work! It’s encouraging to see thoughtful discussion taking place. I became a Christian right after graduating from high school and received my early training in churches thoroughly committed to gender heirarchy. I accepted this teaching; ironically, it remained unchallenged until I briefly attended a conservative Bible institute which, while being decidedly anti-egalitarian, had a wonderful library. There I recieved my introduction to some of the issues being discussed - as well as my introduction to the heat that comes when presumptions are challenged.

I haven’t run into too many fellow egalitarians in my journey. Most of my church connection over the years has been in self-identified complementarian churches. Prior to my move to this area a couple years ago, my home church, wonderful in many ways, was also staunchly allied with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: the founding pastor was mentored by John Piper, and Grudem’s work was highly recommended. (I once heard one of the current pastors proclaim his honor at having Grudem’s brother as his dentist(!) I’m sure he’s an excellent dentist.)

I’ve been very concerned about some of the consequences of traditional teaching for the church’s testimony to the world and for the harmful effects I have seen to our ministry to each other, particularly regarding marriage issues and mentoring young Christians as they explore their gifts.

I have also been concerned by the tone the debate has sometimes taken. There’s no room among Christ’s followers for anything less than a loving and respectful (and truthful) approach to the other side. While I’ve been most disappointed by the behavior of some of my brothers and sisters on the complementarian side of the divide, I have to remind myself to take care, especially when provoked, and maybe throw an accountability reminder to my ‘team’ every once in a while. I especially need to remember that we are all ultimately on the same team, and shout it loudly where that may be put in doubt.

I’ve seen God’s hand at work despite our failings. This gives me hope.

Over the years, information given by those affiliated with CBE has been a real source of encouragement and a valuable resource in my own exploration. I’ve had the opportunity to share it with others who are seeking as well.

For the record, I once apparently had two dorm floors of dear Christian students praying for my rebellious spirit at the Bible institute. I had shared with my roommate some of what I was discovering regarding kephale on my own time. Her apology and the disclosure of my rebel reputation came when she learned about the word in a New Testament class.

The information about its use in the LXX (Septuagint) was particularly compelling to me; in response to Jackie, I’m not an expert on Old Testament history, but I don’t think we’re entirely in the dark regarding the way the ‘heads’ of tribes were viewed and addressed in relation to their actual function by their contemporaries (the Bible itself covers some of that). To me, it seems at least as relevant how they were viewed by the translators of the LXX, whose use of the term is under discussion.

Take care and blessings to all. Thanks again to everyone (and I mean everyone) who has been taking the time to work through some really important issues on this blog. Keep up the good work - you don’t know who’s watching.

Comment by fjs

January 12, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

I love your story, Sarah. I also became an egalitarian at a conservative Bible college when I began researching Ephesians 5. It was like God was leading me to discover another biblical interpretation. In my faith journey I had only heard the complementarian interpretation. I didn’t know there were other solid, biblical interpretations.

I have also found few comrades in the journey and feel often like a very unusual person. Some think I have become a feminist and folks frequently ask me if I believe the Bible anymore. I have attended churches that are backed by denominations that ordain women and even still I am the weird one among women.

Glad you are part of the dialogue and willing to share your journey.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

I was converted to gender hierarchy as a young woman. I was put under enormous pressure to convert, and so thinking that what I was doing was what God wanted me to do - I converted. I used to pray for my female relatives that they would convert to it also. Instead I ended up unconverting. Strange how prayer gets answered in unusual ways.

Comment by Alan

January 12, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

I have followed the above discussion with interest. For those who would like to review the entire discussion in the scholarly literature both pro and con including the most recent articles through 2007 might want to see my article in Priscilla Papers (Vol. 20, No. 4, Autumn 2006, pp. 21–36). My conclusions to the whole debate and applications to 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 are given at the end of the discussion. What emerges in this study is that both ’source’ and ‘authority over’ are legitimate meanings in first century Greek, but, and this is important, both senses are ‘rare’ as far as the evidence is concerned. A third sense is now emerging from the evidence – a sense that a number of scholars are following. This sense is ‘prominent’ ‘preeminent’ ‘foremost’ ‘representative’ (Thiselton, Cervin, Perriman, Gundry–Volf, Johnson).

The context in each case should determine the metaphors sense and also allow for Paul to use ‘live’ metaphorical senses that he himself has created. In such cases no exact metaphorical use can be found in any lexical listing from antiquity.

Finally, kephale should continue to be translated by the English word ‘head’ with the understanding that this English word is not the exact equivalent of the Greek word and that metaphorical meanings derived from the term are primarily determined by the context.

Comment by Sarah

January 12, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

Thanks for the responses! I know I have been considered strange, and not just for the egalitarian issue (I’ve been told many times that I think too much). Most often I haven’t brought gender issues up in conversation unless necessary. Right now I’m at the house of a couple of dear friends (mother and daughter) who, while not academics, are some of the best practical theologians I know.

Needless to say, we’ve been having a grand conversation - I’ve been relaying the blog discussion as we go, and they’ve been very interested. As one just said - you don’t have to be a rabid feminist to know that we are created in God’s image, too, and if God didn’t want women to serve him in certain ways he wouldn’t have given them the brains and talents (and I’ll add, the desire) to serve in those ways. Pretty much sums it up.

I have to wonder what those students praying for me to repent of my rebellious ways would think of how things have turned out. Their prayers might have been answered in ways far more profound than expected. At least I hope so.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

Thanks for the info, Alan. I’m going to look up your article. It sounds really good.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

When I was young there was quite a conversion process going on to convert young women to gender hierarchy. As soon as a woman converted to Christ, great efforts were made to convert her to the idea of submission as a way of life for her. To be considered truly submitted to the will of God, women were expected to accept one-way submission to men and to reject anything that smacked of feminism. In fact, for some Christians, feminism was the enemy. And to be considered a good Christian, a woman was expected to reject all forms of feminism.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

When I think about it, it’s amazing how much effort part of the Christian community has made in order to make sure women are ‘less than all they could be’ for the Lord.

Comment by sarah

January 12, 2008 @ 9:02 pm

Thanks to Dr. Johnson (Alan) for the additional information. One of the things his post shows me is the value of discussion and informed debate: when we are unwilling to challenge ‘established’ theological understandings we lose out on essential insights.

Don’t know where the search will end but glad for the fact that it is being pursued.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 11:32 pm

I just read Dr. Johnson’s article ‘A Meta-Study of the Debate Over the Meaning Of Head (Kephale) in Paul’s Writings’ (Priscilla Papers, Vol. 20, Number 4, Autumn 2006). It’s great. I really enjoyed it.

However, I’m glad I didn’t read it before starting this blog. Because, if I had I wouldn’t have created it, as the article answers the question the blog asked. And then I would have missed all these great responses.

Comment by SSM

January 14, 2008 @ 5:07 am

JLP, I had similar experiences to yours in comment 77899, and agree with your comment 77900.

I am currently trying to undo the washing of my mind with all that hierarchical stuff. Since I became a Christian I have always believed in my heart that my God gave me unfettered access to his kingdom and gifts but until recently have not known a biblical interpretave method to support it. I am expert in the viewpoint that doesnt support my experience with God - a somewhat frustrating position!

Comment by SSM

January 14, 2008 @ 5:29 am

I have now read Dr. Johnson’s article (also, see comment 77908). It is excellent.

This blog has stimulated quite a discussion at home! To answer part of my question in comment 77855 I can make a suggestion. If we apply the ‘Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic’ as outlined by William Webb in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ by Pierce and Groothuis and we see how Paul, when addressing the Ephesians provided a Christian analogy for their cultural setting (Christ to the Church, husband to the wife). We wondered what analogy Paul would use now in our non-patriarchal culture, and thought the equal ruling of Adam and Eve pre-fall would show our interdependence and thus a redemptive look at how our marriages should function.

Comment by sarah

January 14, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

Early in any conversation I have with people about studying the Bible, I try to lay out the fundamental principle that ‘context is your best friend.’ It seems to me that there’s a tendency to accept that axiom when it comes to reading a passage or term in its immediate literary context while regarding with suspicion attempts to put it in its cultural context. Knowing the audience as well as the speaker can change our whole outlook; a friend of mine just shared a passage from a book in which one character asks another if he likes cats. When he answers ‘yes’ and reminisces about his childhood kitty, she pushes a plate toward him and says ‘good; I’m not hungry anymore.’

Maybe this says more about my friends than anything else.

Comment by Liz

January 15, 2008 @ 6:03 am

See comment 77796.

I think this is exactly how our marriages should function and it’s great that you came to that conclusion through looking at cultural context.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:28 am

I feel offended that CBMW took my question word for word and quoted it on their website. If David Kotter wanted to answer the question - he should have engaged us here.

Comment by Suzanne

January 16, 2008 @ 5:39 am

Could you please delete my three comments above - comment 78067, 78079, and 78080 and just post this link to my blog, here, where I have posted a full response? I had some editing difficulty here.

Thank you. You may copy my post to here if you wish.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 7:07 am

To David Kotter, instead of copying my exact post to your site and then commenting on it, why didn’t you respond here?

To Suzanne, thank you for your open letter to David Kotter. I am hoping that he reads it and responds to it.

Comment by Mary

January 16, 2008 @ 7:40 am

JLP, you said (see comment 78076):

I feel offended that CBMW took my question word for word and quoted it on their website. If David Kotter wanted to answer the question - he should have engaged us here.

Yes, I agree he should have. But then he’d actually have had to engage someone, and be subject to refutations of what he says. He’s safe from that at the Gender Blog.

Additionally, your excellent question (which he’s really not addressing, given he’s tipped his hand about dismissing any evidence that doesn’t support his position) could not then be used as fodder for numerous posts of non-answers.

It’s very fashionable right now to not engage those of us who embrace biblical equality, but rather to quote us elsewhere and never actually deal with the discussion of the issues. What this says to me is that some of the more influential proponents of gender hierarchy are either unwilling or unable to defend any actual critique of their anti-egalitarian opinions.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

Hey John Mark, at least you come here and talk to us, instead talking at us from another site.

I have something I would like to ask of you. Could you post links to some of the issues you discuss, such as:

Plato’s description of the role of the head in a human in Timaeus 44d

Are you denying the great and lasting impact of the Greek and of the arguments and images of Timaeus on Eastern and Jewish thought in the period before Christ?

Don’t some uses of a term count more than others?

(I’m assuming you believe that kephale was used as ‘authority’ more often than other metaphorical meanings.)

Again, since Plato uses ‘head’ as an image of authority, this is a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.

I should mention that it seems an extraordinary claim, made on Suzanne’s blog, to say that Paul would have been more likely to have read Aristotle than Plato. Aristotle, sadly, was in relative eclipse for much of the Hellenistic period. The neo-Platonists included such world class figures as Plotinus.

Check out the references to Plato in Hellenistic philosophers and Greek thinkers as compared to Aristotle. Note the influence of Plato on Philo and on the translators of the LXX.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

Hey John Mark, if you are correct about kephale meaning ‘authority’ some of the time, why doesn’t the Liddell Scott Jones lexicon reflect it? And why didn’t the translators of the Septuagint, who were later than Plato, use kephale more for authority than they did?

Also, you do realize only men benefit from men having ‘authority’ in marriage and in the church? The teaching of gender hierarchy has seriously damaged women in the Christian community, while benefiting men. The massive damage caused to women by teaching gender hierarchy is terrible.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

Just once I wish the male teachers of gender hierarchy would admit to the harm and damage they have done to women through their teaching.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

John Mark, you do realize you are teaching something that benefits you and harms me, don’t you?

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

John Mark, the reason I asked you for links is because I’m not really sure what you are talking about.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

John Mark, your knowledge level is higher than mine, and I’m not able to follow all your ideas, so I will just ask you three questions.

1. The Mickelsen study concerned the Septuagint, which I believe is the same as the LXX. In comments 77645 and 77779 I have quotes from the Mickelsens in which they basically state that when the translators of the Septuagint chose to translate rosh from Hebrew into Greek for the most part they didn’t use kephale. See part of the quote below:

That leaves only eight instances (out of 180) where the Septuagint translators clearly chose to use kephale as a translation for ro’sh, when ro’sh meant ‘chief’ or ‘leader.’ Septuagint translators used fourteen different Greek words to translate ro’sh…

What I think you meant in one of your posts is that the translators did just the opposite and the that Septuagint translators (if it is the same as the LXX) used kephale to mean ‘authority.’ Now I may be misunderstanding you here. Am I? If I’m not do you have evidence that contradicts the Mickelsen study? If so, can you provide the precise information such as the Mickelsen’s provided in their quote?

2. You also talk about Plato believing the head is the seat of the immortal, rational, and simple soul. Recently I read a psychology book that stated that the ancient Greeks (no time period was given) understood that when the heart rate is calm, more rational decisions are made. As a result they saw the heart, not the head, as the seat of decision making. So I don’t know what to make of your statement about Plato.

3. As for your statement:

Are you denying the great and lasting impact of the Greek and of the arguments and images of Timaeus on Eastern and Jewish thought in the period before Christ?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

4. (This is actually for both you and Suzanne.) You said:

I should mention that it seems an extraordinary claim, made on Suzanne’s blog, to say that Paul would have been more likely to have read Aristotle than Plato. Aristotle, sadly, was in relative eclipse for much of the Hellenistic period. The neo-Platonists included such world class figures as Plotinus.

There weren’t very many books back in Paul’s day, and most people had little access to them even if they could read. Perhaps Paul didn’t read either Aristotle or Plato.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

John Mark, for your information… I mentioned the fact that the belief in male authority only benefits men to let you know that I take that into consideration anytime a man tries to convince me of male authority.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

John Mark, I think I understand what you mean when you say:

Are you denying the great and lasting impact of the Greek and of the arguments and images of Timaeus on Eastern and Jewish thought in the period before Christ?

You are saying that Greek philosophy influenced Jewish thought, am I correct?

But here’s where I am confused, I thought (and perhaps incorrectly) that the Jewish people rejected Greek thought as pagan. If you do believe that Greek thought did influence the Jews, what part of Greek thought do you believe influenced them? Perhaps the Jews accepted part of Greek thoughts and rejected others. If so, what part did the Jews accept that would have influenced Greek speaking Jews like Paul to use kephale to mean ‘authority.’

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

John Mark and Suzanne, John Mark seems to believe that kephale was often used with the meaning of ‘authority’ (or am I way off on this?) and Suzanne believes it was used rarely with the meaning of ‘authority.’

Here is a quote I would like both of you to comment on, from Philip Barton Payne’s Women, Authority, and the Bible:

To confirm that ‘authority’ was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent speicalists in ancient Greek literature (David Armstrong of the University of Texas at Austin and Michael Wigodsky and Mark Edwards of Stanford University). They all agreed that the idea of ‘authority’ was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.

Do you know who these men are, and why they would have said what they did? I sort of agree with Suzanne, that probably on rare occasions it was used with the meaning of ‘authority’ (and also on rare occasions to mean ’source’). But I’m not a Greek scholar like John Mark and these men are, and I’m not a linguist like Suzanne is.

Comment by JSE

January 19, 2008 @ 1:34 am

It would appear to me that JLP is offering just enough evidence to argue against herself. Perhaps that was taught to her by her male teachers also.

I have an anecdotal story: My son once came to me and said, ‘Hey daddy, I’m superman!’ I said, ‘Yes son, you are superman’ and I picked him up and flew him around the room… although, I do not expect him to rescue me during a time of danger.

Comment by jlp

January 19, 2008 @ 3:19 am

Suzanne wrote a very informative response to John Mark Reynolds here. You have to scroll down to find it. I encourage everyone to read it.

Comment by Jackie

January 19, 2008 @ 9:32 am

I don’t actually have a question. Rather I was making the point that we assume we know that rosh used in the head and tail idiom means that the being the head and tail meant leader in terms of the decision maker. With that underlying assumption we then intepret meaning into passages about leaderhip in societies represented in Scripture. We apply, without adequate proof, Western understandings of leadership over other tribal understandings. For instance, over Celtic tribal concepts, nor indeed even modern Near East tribal concepts.

If, for instance, we were to consider a ‘first among equals’ understanding of head and tail, then Andrew Perriman’s suggestion that kephale in Paul’s usage may indicate ‘prominent.’ Responding that we can ’see’ it in the Old Testament doesn’t really test assumption. We may well ’see’ in the Old Testament what we are most predisposed to see based on our own Western enculturation and we may take and ’see’ parts of the Bible as examples that do not reflect time/culture of the head and tail idiom. (After all, the Old Testament does not reflect a stagnant culture, but rather reveals many cultures in flux.)

Which gets to the pointm that until someone, somewhere looks at the tribal structure at that time, in that place, then we can’t make assumptions about the meaning of an idiom from that period. We can’t know the truth based on an assumption colored by our own perceptions.

Jackie, if Adam is the head of the human race, we really don’t need to worry about the cultural application. Adam is dead. He is the head or the ‘origin’ of the human race. I don’t really worry at all about how man is ruler or woman, he just isn’t, that is the curse.

I’m sorry, I need a Scripture reference on this… where exactly was Adam called the head? I double checked, and I couldn’t find it. Also, how do you know that a man ruling over woman was a ‘curse?’ I can only find, ‘To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”‘ However, God does not say this is a curse. Rather it appears to be more of a consequence. Woman’s desire will be for man, and he’ll rule over her. In my experience God is right - just like what Jesus said about our treasure. Where we put our hearts is what will control us - if God’s our desire, we’ll be in his control, if our desire is money, money will control us. Doesn’t seem like a curse to me, just common sense.

My tentative views are this. Woman has the reproductive capacity. She has the power of veto over sex. In a very basic way she has something that man wants. Lots of women feel disempowered, or overpowered, of course, as I did. However, a man feels this too.

Yeah, see, that’s a little wacky for me. Though I am chaste since I’m not married, I could be out having sex without having children. And veto and sex just don’t go together. When people love each other and surrender their own wills to one another, ‘vetos’ fly out the window. So, that whole woman as life giver therefore has control thing is just out there as far as I’m concerned.

So… the woman who marries, the wife, owes it to her husband to have children for him, for them both, equally (I don’t mean if it is medically bad for her, but otherwise).

Praise the Lord, Jesus didn’t see it this way! Rather we owe no one anything except love. Jesus paid all my debts, I am indebted to no one. We’re free in Christ. And frankly, if we truly want to be life givers we don’t have to go out and get knocked up. Rather, we can truly share in giving live and raise the dead! We can tell people about Jesus and watch them be transformed from death to life. Eeek, it really worries me that we see children as something we ‘owe’ to anyone.

The wife shares her reproductive capacity with her husband on equal terms. She has children with him, she acknowledges that they are his children and together they have equal parental rights.

All I can say is, huh? Paul felt that we should stay unmarried becuase it gives us more time for the Lord and spares us the burden of relationships. At the same time, he valued those relationships and encouraged us to live healthily in those relationships. We’re not valued by our reproductive systems, but rather by our fundamental relationship with Christ. The only verse that could in any way be interpreted to suggest such a thing is in Timothy, and no one knows what it means (and anyone who claims they do is fibbing to you). And I would never see children as ‘his,’ ‘hers,’ or whatever. Children are human beings that we don’t own - in fact, hopefuly, we’ve given them to the Lord.

She is the mother with full rights as mother and she acknowledges him as the progenitor. She respects his equal rights.

Again, I can only ask where is this found anywhere in Scripture?

This means that women who want independence from men are going against Scripture, women who want abortions, or divorce their husbands, taking the children.

Again, where exactly is this anywhere in Scripture? Yes, men and women are interdependent according to Paul. However, Paul says it is better to be unmarried in order to focus on the Lord. Women are not ‘dependent’ on men - we are dependent on Jesus. We are complete in Jesus - just men are complete in Jesus. If we want to be life givers, we do it Jesus’ way. Now, if we want children because we love children, great. But it is not our calling in life. Jesus said our calling is to love one another and to go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing folks, casting out demons, etc… That is what it means to be a real Christian woman.

Not that there are not situations where these things happen, but in general, the wife honors and respects the husband as father.

Okay, we’ve totally crossed into creepy. First, Scripture forbids having sex with our fathers, but encourages us to have sex with our husbands. That should be our first clue that we don’t view our husbands as fathers. Next Jesus was point blank, we aren’t supposed to call anyone father except the Father (most of us miss this, but hey, Jesus said it, so he must have been making a point.)

Further, when showing us what marriage should be like, Paul had three folks in the Godhead to pick from. God the Father, God the Spirit and God the Son - kind of odd, but if he meant for us to somehow subliminally understand that he meant to point out a father-child relationship, he picked God the Son. To me, that should be another indication that we’re not talking parent-child relationship. Then mix that with Song of Songs. Its kind of odd, but when the chick was getting all hot about her man, she wasn’t saying, ‘oh daddy, your legs are so hot.’ Oddly enough, she refered to him as ‘brother’ and talked a lot about how he was like her. Kind of like man spotting woman for the first time.

Comment by Mary

January 19, 2008 @ 9:51 am

Jackie, I took Suzanne to be saying that the wife should respect the husband, who is father of their children, as the children’s father. I don’t think her context makes it reasonable to assume she meant that a wife should give her husband respect as though he were her father.

And out of the scary-but-true category, one incestuous relationship the Bible doesn’t forbid is a father having sex with his daughter; she’s the one female relative that a man isn’t forbidden in Torah to have sex with. Of course, that doesn’t negate the fact that such behavior is evil, as we all know. It’s a part of that traditional anthropological code that sexual access to a woman was controlled by her father, until she was acquired by a man as his mate, who then had control of sexual access to her.

There are movements today that are much too close to this primal practice for comfort, if we examine them.

Comment by fjs

January 19, 2008 @ 10:51 am

Thanks, Suzanne, for your blog link. I visted and read one of the online books… I feel newly empowered to preach the gospel.

Comment by jlp

January 19, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

Jackie, I see what you are saying. So often we have not looked at the cultural and historical context in which words are used and therefore have read our own cultural context into them. I have to agree we have done that a lot with the Bible.

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

Whatever the word head was intended to mean, it was used in the relation of a husband and wife. There is no mention of anyone being the ‘head of the home’ and yet this is included in comments about roles and responsibilities. One comment has been enlarged to include extra ideas until it is believed to be what God has in mind.

On our dining room wall we have a plaque which reads ‘Christ is the head of this home; the unseen guest at every meal and the silent listener to every conversation.’ This is over forty years old and since the upsurge of interest in defining strict roles in the home, this particular text has disappeared from Christian bookshops in Australia.

Comment by Suzanne

January 19, 2008 @ 11:34 pm

Jackie, I wrote:

Not that there are not situations where these things happen, but in general, the wife honors and respects the husband as father.

I definitely meant that a woman is to respect her husband as the father of her children - if they have children. Not as ‘her own father.’ Forgive me some unedited typing. Don’t start a rumour about me.

All I am saying is that women should respect men, however you find that appropriate. It’s not something I care to argue about. I was just writing some tentative thoughts. I see you don’t like them. I am okay with that.

You asked about Adam. Adam is not called the head of the human race in the Bible. It is part of the evidence on kephale. It goes like this:

Grudem says, ‘Give me one example where kephale refers to a person and the person is not the ruler.’ So then someone says, ‘Adam - in Cyril of Alexandria,’ and Grudem says, ‘The word probably has the sense of ruler there.’

Here is another interesting example. This is from the Gender Blog a couple of days ago.

Grudem wrote, ‘…the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation.’ Here is the quote (but not supplied by Grudem):

…among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings. (Moses 2:30)

Here Grudem says this. Someone has already challenged him on this and Grudem wrote:

Therefore this example should be reclassified as one in which the meaning authority over is possible but not [emphasis mine] required. (19) Philo, Moses 2.30: ‘As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy [Ptolemy Philadelphos] became among kings.’ Cervin does not think that head means ruler here because Philo says that Philadelphos is the head of kings, not in the sense of ruling them, but as the preeminent king among the rest. Philadelphos is the top of the kings just as the head is the top of an animal’s body… This example is therefore to be rejected.

That is a direct quote from Grudem in the appendix of his book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. So why, if he has admitted that this example should be rejected, does he put it at the head of his list on the gender blog a few days ago?

The fact is that no one is able to hold Grudem responsible to what he himself has already written.

It is true that sometimes the Greeks located the ruling part of the body in the head. Not always, but sometimes. However, I cannot think of any examples where the meaning of authority over other people is presumed to be part of the meaning of head. If someone is mentioned as ‘head’ they are more likely first in some way, not over in authority.

The example of the general that Grudem gave is counterbalanced by the fact that there was a use for the term kephale in the army already, the right-hand phalanx, not the general. One time the general is referred to as the head, but that was only in a metaphor or comparison, that he was like the head. The general was never called ‘the kephale of the army.’

Every one of Grudem’s examples can be looked at in context and you can see that there is an explanation in the surrounding text for what kephale means. It is not assumed to mean authority.

Comment by Suzanne

January 20, 2008 @ 12:29 am

Liz, you might