|
Academics
Departments Special Interest
Navigation
|
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
A Response to Evangelical Feminism
Wayne Grudem and John Piper
[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
Appendix 1 Part B
Wayne Grudem
While Cervin's explanation at first seems plausible, it does not do justice to the actual words Philo uses. In fact Philo calls the head to hegemoneuon . . . tropon, the ruling place in the body-a phrase that Cervin simply skips over and fails to translate in his own rendering of the passage (p. 100). But the adjectival participle hegemoneuon here certainly has the sense of leading or ruling, since the verb hegemoneuo means lead the way, rule, command (Liddell-Scott, p. 762).
On the other hand, Cervin says that his suggestion that head here is used as a metaphor of preeminence is fully in keeping with the use of kephale as defined in [Liddell-Scott] (p. 99). However, one searches in vain for such a definition in Liddell-Scott-it simply is not there (see the summary of meanings given in Liddell-Scott on p. 000 above). It would seem a better lexical procedure to stick with previously recognized and well-attested senses for kephale if that is possible in the context in which we find the word than to postulate new meanings that might seem to be possible in a few instances but have not proved themselves convincing to any lexicographers in the hundreds of years in which the Greek language has been studied. Moreover, it seems that it would have been more appropriate for Cervin to notify readers that he was proposing a new meaning previously unrecognized in the lexicons than to say that this meaning is fully in keeping with the use of kephale as defined in [Liddell-Scott] (p. 99) when it is simply not there.
(21-22) Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 125: The virtuous one, whether single man or people, will be the head of the human race and all the others will be like the parts of the body which are animated by the powers in and above the head.
Cervin says, It is fairly clear that 'head' here is the source of life. . . . Whether or not 'head' is taken to mean 'source' in this passage, Philo's simile of the animal and his statement that the head is 'the first and best part' makes it clear that 'preeminence' is Philo's point, not 'authority.' The 'virtuous one' will be preeminent among the human race. These examples must be rejected (p. 101).
Here Cervin proposes two definitions: source and preeminence, and it is not clear which one he is advocating. If it is preeminence, then again it must be said that this meaning might possibly be an overlapping nuance that accompanies the head metaphor in this context, but it is probably not a necessary sense (it is not previously attested in any Greek lexicon), and it certainly is not the only nuance suggested in the metaphor here.
In fact, the context suggests much more than fame or preeminence-the rest of the human race is dependent in some way on this virtuous person or people. More explicit understanding of the meaning of head here is found when we recognize the larger context of Philo's discussion. The entire treatise On Rewards and Punishments is a discussion of the rewards God promised the people of Israel for obedience and the punishments He promised for disobedience. This particular section begins with an allusion to the fact that the mind of wisdom was not dragged down tailwards but lifted up to the head (124), an allusion to the promise in Deuteronomy 28:13 that if the people of Israel would be faithful to God, the Lord your God will make you the head and not the tail (compare Deuteronomy 28:44).{24} Then Philo says that these last words contain an allegory and are figuratively expressed (125). He then goes on to explain the allegory in the quotation that follows.
For our purposes it is significant that this passage in Deuteronomy 28 contains much about the people of Israel ruling over the nations and having the nations serve them if God exalts them to be the head and not the tail (see Deuteronomy 28:7, 10; and contrast with verses 43-44). There certainly is an idea of preeminence in this context, but it is preeminence that includes leadership and rule over the nations, and Cervin wrongly attempts to force a distinction between preeminence and leadership in this context.
But is the meaning source a better translation of kephale in this context? Certainly the text does say that the rest of the human race will be like the limbs of a body that are animated by the powers in and above the head. But the verb that I here translate animated (Greek psychoo) can simply mean give understanding or wisdom in Philo (see, for example, On the Creation 9; On the Virtues 14; Who Is the Heir, 185). This makes sense in the context: the virtuous man or people will be exalted by God to be the head and will thus be a leader who gives direction and wisdom to the rest of the human race-they will be quickened and directed by the powers and wisdom in this man or nation.
The idea of source does not fit the context nearly as well, both because no one would think that the head of an animal was the source of the entire animal, and because no one would think that a virtuous man exalted to leadership in the human race was the source of the human race! In both cases it is the leadership function that is in view when God makes one the head and not the tail.
Given this larger context, it still seems most appropriate to conclude that Philo here uses the expression head of the human race to mean leader of the human race, certainly not source of the human race (which would hardly make sense), and very likely not preeminent one (at least not preeminent one without leadership or authority in the human race). Cervin is incorrect to reject this example as false.
What are we to conclude concerning the twelve examples Cervin classified as false ? Five should be put in a separate category of examples where a person's head is said to rule over his or her body (examples 3, 18, 20, 28, 29). Two should be classified as possible but not clear or certain examples of kephale meaning leader or authority over (examples 1, 17). The remaining five (9, 15, 19, 21, 22) remain legitimate examples of the meaning leader.
5. Seven Examples That Cervin Considers Illegitimate
The first three examples are from Plutarch:
(24-25) Plutarch, Cicero 14.4: Catiline says to Cicero, criticizing the Senate as weak and the people as strong, There are two bodies, one lean and wasted, but with a head, and the other headless but strong and large. What am I doing wrong if I myself become a head for this? In saying this, Catiline was threatening to become the head of the people and thus to lead the people in revolt against Cicero. Therefore, Cicero was all the more alarmed.
(27) Plutarch, Agis 2.5: A ruler who follows popular opinions is compared to a serpent whose tail rebelled against the head and insisted on leading the body in place of the head. The serpent consequently harmed itself. The implication is that a ruler should be like the head of a serpent and thereby lead the people.
Regarding the first two instances, Cervin admits that kephale is used by Cataline for a leader (himself) (p. 101), but he then goes on to object that these two examples are illegitimate, first of all, because Cataline's answer was in the form of a 'riddle,' as Plutarch points out (p. 102). Then Cervin adds, Secondly, and more importantly, Cataline was speaking in Latin, not Greek, and Cervin then provides a parallel passage from Cicero, concerning which he concludes, It is entirely possible that Plutarch used this passage as source material for his Life of Cicero, and it is equally possible that Plutarch translated the Latin rather literally for the sake of the 'riddle.' If this were so, then this use of head for 'leader' is really a Latin metaphor, and not a Greek one. . . . These examples are therefore illegitimate (p. 102).
First, whether the answer was a riddle or not, it is evident that Cicero understood it because he was immediately alarmed. We may assume that Plutarch also expected his readers to understand it.
The objection that this may have been translated from Latin does not make the example an illegitimate one for Greek. Cervin's objection here is similar to his objection to the use of Septuagint examples because the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew. In both cases the translators were writing to be understood by those into whose language they were making the translation. Certainly it is true here that Plutarch's extensive historical writings are in Greek that would be understandable to Plutarch's readers, and whether or not the text was based on some Latin source material is not nearly as relevant as Cervin would have us think. These remain valid examples of kephale meaning ruler, authority over -in this case referring to authority over the Roman Empire itself.
The third example, regarding the serpent whose tail led the head is certainly not a direct metaphor in which kephale means leader. It is closer to a simile in which Plutarch explains that a leader who is also a follower is like a serpent that follows its tail rather than its head. The example is of some importance to us because the leader is compared to the head of a serpent, but it is better classified as a simile (similar to example 23 [Plutarch, Pelopidas 2. 1. 3], above).
The remaining four examples that Cervin classifies as illegitimate are from Aquila's Greek translation of the Old Testament. Cervin objects that these are illegitimate for the simple reason that Aquila's Greek translation of the OT was so slavishly literal that it was incomprehensible to native Greeks! . . . These examples from Aquila must therefore be rejected (p. 105).
Although Cervin is right to caution us about the use of Aquila, he has greatly overstated the case. Though Aquila's translation was quite woodenly literal so that his grammatical constructions were at times foreign to Greek, his translation is not entirely without linguistic value for us. We must remember that the Jews, however, held this translation in the highest esteem.{25} Moreover, Aquila himself was a Gentile who was a native Greek speaker long before he learned Hebrew.{26} Nor was he ignorant of the large vocabulary available in the Greek of his time:
That the crudities of Aquila's style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary is clear from his ready use of words belonging to the classical or the literary type when they appear to him to correspond to the Hebrew more closely than the colloquialisms of the LXX.{27}
One wonders if Cervin's concern to dismiss these examples from Aquila has not led to some overstatement concerning Aquila's translation. An interesting example is seen in the comparison of two sentences. The first comes from the essay, History of the Septuagint Text in the preface to the Rahlfs edition, pp. xxxvi:
Aquila's translation of the Bible must on occasions have proved altogether incomprehensible to non-Jews.
Cervin has apparently read this essay (for he quotes a sentence from a location two pages earlier in the essay), but his statement tells readers not that Aquila's translation on occasions was incomprehensible, but that the entire translation was incomprehensible. He says,
Aquila's Greek translation of the OT was so slavishly literal that it was incomprehensible to native Greeks! (p. 105)
Certainly this is an overstatement, since the translation was used widely for centuries by Greek-speaking Jews.
It seems best to conclude that these examples from Aquila are of some value, though their weight as evidence is limited, both because of Aquila's translation style and because they come somewhat after the time of the New Testament (second century A.D.). It would not be appropriate to call them illegitimate examples, as Cervin does.
In conclusion, regarding the seven examples that Cervin calls illegitimate, one (number 27) is better classified as a simile, and the remaining six should be seen as legitimate, though those from Aquila are less weighty than the others.
6. Two Examples That Cervin Claims Do Not Exist
Mr. Cervin has correctly pointed out that, in my original article, I incorrectly counted two examples where the word head was repeated in the English text but in fact the word kephale was not found a second time in the Greek text itself. These two examples were the second instance of the word head in each of the following quotations:
(2) Herodotus 7. 148. 17: guarding your head from the blow; and the head shall shelter the body.
In this example the synonym kare is used instead of kephale .
(16) Isaiah 9:14-16: so the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail . . . the elder and honored man is the head.
In this sentence the Greek word kephale does not appear a second time.
In writing the original article, I examined all the occurrences in the original Greek text, then listed the English translation for each one, then made a final enumeration of the instances listed. But as I counted, in the two texts mentioned here I had failed to note that kephale only represented one of the two occurrences of the word head in the English text. This was simply an unintentional oversight on my part. I am happy to correct this error in tabulation and note here that these two examples should be dropped from my tally.
7. One Example That Cervin Says "Cannot be Decided"
Here Cervin lists the following example:
(35) Theodotion, Judges 10:18: He will be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.
Cervin says of this, Citing one verse by Theodotian tells us nothing. . . . The crucial question is how consistent is he in translating ro'sh into Greek. . . . Until more is known about Theodotion's translation(s) of ro'sh, judgment must be suspended on this example (p. 105).
This is a puzzling statement. Cervin admits that Theodotion's translation was not as literal as Aquila's, and we know that it was written to be understood by Greek-speaking Jews in the second century A.D.. One wonders on what basis Cervin makes the statement, Citing one verse by Theodotion tells us nothing. Since Theodotion, like most of the New Testament writers, was a Greek-speaking Jew, citing one verse by Theodotion (second century A.D.) probably tells us more about word usage by the New Testament authors (first century A.D.) than citing one passage in Herodotus (fifth century B.C.), to which Cervin gives so much weight. It is fair to conclude that this remains a legitimate example.
Where does this leave us with regard to the forty-nine examples of kephale referred to in my original article? At this point we have the following tally:
Legitimate examples 36
Possible examples 2
Head as a simile for leader 2
Literal head said to rule over body 5
Illegitimate examples 4 (two very late, two do not exist)
But in addition to these examples, the following should be added from the study by Joseph Fitzmyer that Cervin discusses at the end of his article:{28}
Jeremiah 31:7 (LXX 38:7): Rejoice and shout over the head of the nations.
Deuteronomy 28:12-13: And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the Lord will make you the head, and not the tail.
Deuteronomy 28:43-45: The sojourner who is among you shall mount above you higher and higher; and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. All these curses shall come upon you.
Josephus, War, 4.261: Jerusalem is the head of the whole nation.
These four examples may be added to the thirty-six legitimate examples listed above, bringing that total to forty. In addition, as I explain below,{29} the articles by Payne and the Mickelsens have caused me to think Lamentations 1:5 should also be included here: [of Jerusalem] Her foes have become the head, her enemies prosper. This would bring the total to forty-one.
Moreover, one passage from Philo quoted by Fitzmyer should be noted:
Philo, The Special Laws 184: Nature conferred the sovereignty of the body on the head.
This example should be added to the category literal head ruling over the body, bringing that total to six. So the tally now should be:
Legitimate examples 41
Possible examples 2
Head as a simile for leader 2
Literal head said to rule over body 6
Illegitimate examples 4 (two very late, two do not exist)
D. The Meaning Preeminent as Proposed by Cervin
1. Cervin's Proposal
At the end of his article Cervin writes,
What then does Paul mean by his use of head in his letters? He does not mean authority over, as the traditionalists assert, nor does he mean source as the egalitarians assert. I think that he is merely employing a head-body metaphor and that his point is preeminence. This is fully in keeping with the normal and common usage of the word. Both Plutarch and Philo use head in this way and this usage is listed in Liddell-Scott-Jones (with other references). (p. 112)
The problem with this definition is that it is simply not found in Liddell-Scott as Cervin claims. His statement that it is listed there with other references is, as far as I can tell, simply false (see Liddell-Scott, p. 945, and the summary of meanings listed in that article that I gave above, p. 433). Moreover, so far as I know, the meaning preeminent is not found in any specialty lexicons for any period of the Greek language either (unlike kephale with the meaning leader, authority over, which is found in many if not all specialty lexicons for the New Testament and Patristic periods). Why then does Cervin suggest this meaning and claim that it is common and is found in Liddell-Scott?
One begins to wonder if there is not a commitment to find any other meaning than the meaning authority over, leader, which gives us the sense-so unpopular in our modern culture-that the husband is the authority over his wife, as Christ is the authority over the church (Ephesians 5:23). Just as the Mickelsens in 1979 and 1981, in arguing against the meaning authority over for kephale in the New Testament, proposed a new meaning ( source ) that no lexicon in history had ever proposed in the category of definitions referring to persons, so now Cervin in this most recent article has rejected the meaning leader, authority over, which is evident in so many texts, and has again proposed a meaning never before seen in any lexicon. Moreover, just as the Mickelsens earlier alleged (without evidence) that their new meaning, source, was common in Greek literature,{30} so now Mr. Cervin has asserted that his new meaning is fully in keeping with the use of kephale as defined in [Liddell-Scott] (p. 99). But this meaning is simply not there.
2. The Existence of Overtones in Metaphors
Is it necessary then for us to deny that there is any nuance of preeminence (or perhaps prominence ) in the uses of kephale ? Certainly not-for one who is in a position of authority often has some prominence as well. In fact, it is the nature of a metaphor to speak of one thing in terms of another with which it has some shared characteristics. Thus, if someone were to call her boss a drill sergeant, she might be implying that he shares more than one characteristic of a drill sergeant-he might be thought to be not only very demanding but also highly disciplined, uncaring, and even given to barking commands in a loud voice. Part of the strength of a metaphor derives from the fact that there are often multiple nuances associated with it.
Therefore it would not be surprising if, when first-century people referred to someone as the head, there would be nuances not only of authority but perhaps also of prominence or preeminence as well. But the notions of leadership, rule, and authority were so closely connected with the idea of prominence or preeminence in the ancient world that it would probably be impossible to separate them decisively at any point. Moreover, it must be recognized as significant that there are few if any examples where a person is called kephale and the context shows preeminence without rule or authority. In the examples we have looked at, those who are called head are those with utmost authority in the situation in question-the general of an army, the king of Egypt, the Roman emperor, the father in a family, the bishop in a church (in the patristic examples given by Lampe), the heads of the tribes of Israel, the king of Israel, or (with cities) the capital city of a country. Moreover, we have the examples of Christ as the head of the church and the head of all universal power and authority. Someone might wish to argue that the notion of pre-eminence is an overtone in many of these passages in addition to the primary suggestion of authority or leader or ruler. That may well be so. But to argue that head means pre-eminent one without any nuance of leadership or authority seems clearly to fly in the face of an abundance of evidence from both the New Testament and numerous other ancient texts.
Moreover, is not this previously unknown meaning preeminent really contradictory to some very important New Testament teaching? The idea of preeminence suggests status and importance and honor, and if we were to say that the husband's headship means primarily that he is preeminent over his wife, we would almost have to conclude that the husband had greater status and importance and honor than the wife. Yet this is certainly not what the New Testament teaches about male/female relationships-men and women are joint heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7), and are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). In arguing for preeminence, Mr. Cervin is ultimately arguing for a very distasteful male chauvinism that has no place in New Testament teaching or in the Christian church. Not only is this meaning (1) not required by the data and (2) previously unknown to the lexicons, it also (3) gives us a significant theological problem. If accepted, such a meaning would tend to push people toward rejection of Paul's writings on marriage as authoritative for today-a direction that Cervin himself seems to hint at in the last paragraph in his article:
It might be objected that preeminence does not fit the context of 1 Corinthians 11. How can the husband be preeminent over his wife? In the context of the male-dominant culture of which Paul was a part, such a usage would not be inappropriate. . . . Just because we might have difficulty with a given metaphor does not mean that Paul would have had the same difficulty; it is after all his metaphor, not ours. (p. 112)
Personally I refuse to accept for myself any distancing of Paul's metaphor from my own personal convictions. Because these words are Scripture I want Paul's metaphor to become my metaphor as well, not one with which I have difficulty, but one I can fully embrace and rejoice in. I can do that with the sense leader, authority over, because (as I and others have extensively explained elsewhere) the idea of difference in authority is fully consistent with the idea of equality in honor and importance. But I cannot do that so easily with preeminence, because it inherently suggests greater status, honor, and importance for the one who is preeminent.
E. Some Inaccurate Representations of My Article
For the sake of completeness and factual accuracy, it is probably appropriate to mention here a few points at which Cervin seems (to me at least) to have represented my original article inaccurately.
First, regarding the use of Greek texts and translations, Cervin says,
Grudem further states that the Loeb editions were used by him where available; otherwise, standard texts and translations were used (p. 65, emphasis mine). I find the last phrase of this sentence very disturbing. One cannot conduct a word-study of Greek (or any foreign language) by using translations! One must have the original text! (p. 88)
This statement contains an allegation that I sometimes used translations without Greek texts. This is simply a conclusion based on a misreading of my original sentence. I did not say that I used standard texts or translations but that I used standard texts and translations. The original printout that I received from the TLG data base was entirely in Greek, and I did not in any case cite a translation without first consulting the Greek text itself.{31}
Second, Cervin says, regarding Liddell-Scott:
Grudem has demonstrated that he does not really understand the significance of [Liddell-Scott]. Grudem wrongly claims that [Liddell-Scott] emphasizes classical Greek (ibid.). This is not so. [Liddell-Scott] is the only comprehensive Greek-English lexicon of Ancient Greek currently available. While [Liddell-Scott] was originally planned to cover only Classical Greek, it currently covers . . . a time span of roughly 1400 years, 800 B.C. to A.D. 600. (p. 86)
In fact, I said the same thing in the earlier part of the same sentence that Cervin quoted. I wrote:
In fact, Liddell-Scott is the standard lexicon for all of Greek literature from about 700 B.C. to about A.D. 600 with emphasis on classical Greek authors in the seven centuries prior to the New Testament. (p. 47)
One may quibble about the relative emphasis placed on Greek writers prior to the New Testament, but my point was only to say that it is not nearly as detailed a lexicon in the New Testament and early Christian literature as some specialty lexicons like Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker. I was making this point only to critique the Mickelsens, who (in their 1979 article) quoted only Liddell-Scott for the meaning of a New Testament word and failed to inform their readers that their point could not have been supported by any specialty lexicon covering the time of the New Testament.
Finally, Cervin objects to my suggestion that the adjective kephalaios more commonly meant leader than the noun kephale in the centuries before the New Testament. Cervin objects that nouns and adjectives are not always used in the same ways (p. 107). But I did not argue that they always are, only that there are examples that showed a similar meaning in this case. Then Cervin says, Second, Paul did not use the adjective, he used the noun (p. 107). But I did not claim otherwise. Cervin here simply misses my point, which was that there was a related term that was earlier used in the sense of authority, leader but that by the time of the New Testament the noun kephale was quite clearly used in this sense as well.
Where does this leave us? I am grateful that Cervin's article has provided some helpful corrections to my earlier article, but the major point of his article, namely, that kephale cannot mean authority over, leader, and must rather mean pre-eminent one, is disproved by his use of improper methodology and several internal inconsistencies in his argument, and it is contradicted by an abundance of evidence. It must therefore be rejected.
III. Response to Other Recent Studies
A. Articles Since 1985
I list here several articles written or published after my 1985 article, especially those that have contributed to the discussion within the evangelical world:
- Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 97-110.
- Ruth A. Tucker, "Response," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Mickelsen, pp. 111-117.
- Philip B. Payne, "Response," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Mickelsen, pp. 118-132.
- Walter L. Liefeld, "Women, Submission, and Ministry in 1 Corinthians," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Mickelsen, pp. 134-154.
- Gilbert Bilezikian, "A Critical Examination of Wayne Grudem's Treatment of Kephale in Ancient Greek Texts," Appendix to Beyond Sex Roles, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1986] 1990), pp. 215-252.{32}
- Catherine Clark Kroeger, "The Classical Concept of Head as 'Source,'" Appendix III in Equal to Serve, by Gretchen Gaebelein Hull (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), pp. 267-283.
- Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 501-505 [commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:3].
- Joseph Fitzmyer, "Another Look at Kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3," New Testament Studies 35 (1989), pp. 503-511.
- Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), pp. 141-145.
- Recent lexicons by Bauer (1988) and Louw-Nida (1988).
B. Analysis of Recent Articles
1. (1986) Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?"{33}
In their 1979 and 1981 articles in Christianity Today, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen exerted wide influence in the evangelical world by arguing that head in the New Testament often meant source but never authority over. I responded to those articles in my earlier study.{34} But in this 1986 article they give further development of what I will call the Septuagint argument, an argument only briefly used in 1981.
a. "The Septuagint Argument": This is an argument that is also used by Philip Payne{35} (Article 3 above) and by Gordon Fee in his commentary on 1 Corinthians{36} (Article 7 above). It may be summarized this way:
The Septuagint translators used kephale to translate the Hebrew word ro'sh ( head ) in a sense of leader or ruler in only eight out of the 180 cases{37} in which Hebrew ro'sh means leader or authority over. In all the other cases they used other words, most commonly archon, ruler (109 times). Therefore, since the Septuagint translators had about 180 opportunities to use kephale meaning leader, and they only did so eight times, it shows that the translators desired to avoid kephale in the sense of authority or leader over.
The Mickelsens, Philip Payne, and Gordon Fee all see this as a significant point. The Mickelsens say it shows that the Septuagint translators recognized that kephale did not carry the Hebrew meaning of leader, authority or superior rank.{38} Payne says, When the Old Testament meaning of ro'sh was 'leader,' the Septuagint translators realized quite clearly that this would not be conveyed by kephale , so they resorted to some other translation in 171 cases out of 180.{39} Fee says that the Septuagint translators almost never used kephale to translate Hebrew ro'sh when 'ruler' was intended, thus indicating that this metaphorical sense is an exceptional usage and not part of the ordinary range of meanings for the Greek word.{40} Several points of response may be made to this argument:
(1) That the Septuagint translators used another word much more commonly to translate ro'sh when it meant leader is not so significant when we realize that archon was the common word that literally meant leader, whereas kephale only meant leader in a metaphorical sense. It is true that the Septuagint translators preferred archon to mean authority, as I noted in my earlier article (p. 47, n. 17). But I have never claimed, neither has anyone else claimed, that kephale was the most common word for ruler. 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. All I have claimed is that kephale could also mean ruler or authority in a metaphorical sense of head. It is not the most common, but it is a clearly recognizable and clearly understood word in that sense. 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.
(2) The Mickelsens and the others who have used this Septuagint argument fail to note that these eight examples are many compared to the Septuagintal examples of kephale used to mean source, of which there are zero. No one who has made this Septuagint argument has mentioned this fact. To use an athletic analogy, if the score at the end of a baseball game is eight to zero, one begins to wonder why anyone would declare the team with zero to be the winner because the team with eight did not score very many runs. Yet that is what the Mickelsens (and Payne, pp. 121-124, and Fee, pp. 502-503) conclude with respect to kephale meaning authority over -they just say that the eight examples meaning authority over are very few, and fail to tell their readers that their preferred meaning ( source ) has zero occurrences in the Septuagint.
(3) Those who make this argument also fail to mention that in Genesis 2:10, when the Hebrew term ro'sh means source or beginning (of rivers), the Septuagint translators used another term, arche , source, beginning, not kephale , head.{41}
(4) When those who make this argument from the Septuagint give the number of occurrences of kephale meaning authority or leader in the LXX as eight, they give a misleadingly low number. The Mickelsens and Payne arrive at their low numbers by dismissing five texts{42} where there is a textual variant (apparently Judges 10:18; 11:8, 9; 1 Kings [LXX 3 Kings] 8:1, and one of the instances in Isaiah 7:8).{43} Yet these variant readings are in Codex Alexandrinus, one of the three great ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint.{44}
Moreover, there seems to be an inconsistency on the part of these authors when they dismiss these variant readings but fail to mention that the single text they most strongly appeal to for kephale as source (Orphic Fragments 21a, Zeus the kephale . . . ) also has kephale only as a variant reading, with arche in other manuscripts. In short, there is no good reason not to count these additional five examples of kephale meaning authority as well. This gives a total of thirteen in the LXX.
Furthermore, the Mickelsens dismiss three texts where God tells the people He will make them the head and not the tail with respect to the other nations, or, in punishment, will make other nations the head and them the tail (Deuteronomy 28:13, 44; Isaiah 9:14).{45} They say that head here is just used to complete the metaphor: it would not make sense without the use of head in contrast to tail.{46} But Payne seems right to admit these three examples,{47} since they just extend the metaphor to include tail as follower, one ruled over as well as using head to mean leader, ruler (especially in the context of nations who rule other nations).{48} Allowing for a correction on one of the Septuagint instances I earlier counted, I have now adjusted my own count of instances in the Septuagint to sixteen instead of the earlier thirteen.{49}
Those sixteen instances of kephale meaning authority over in the Septuagint are the following:
1. Deuteronomy 28:13: [in relationship to other nations] And the Lord will make you the head, and not the tail; and you shall tend upward only, and not downward; if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day. (Compare with the following passage, where rule and authority are in view.)
2. Deuteronomy 28:44: [ If you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God . . ., verse 15] The sojourner who is among you shall mount above you higher and higher; and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. All these curses shall come upon you. . . .
3. Judges 10:18 (A): And the people, the leaders of Gilead, said to one another, 'Who is the man that will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.'
4. Judges 11:8 (A): And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, 'That is why we have turned to you now, that you may go with us and fight with the Ammonites, and be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.'
5. Judges 11:9 (A): Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, 'If you bring me home again to fight with the Ammonites, and the Lord gives them over to me, I will be your head.'
6. Judges 11:11: So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and all the people made him head and leader over them.
7. 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 22:44: David says to God, You shall keep me as the head of the Gentiles: a people which I knew not served me.
8. 3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:1 (A): Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel with all the heads of the tribes.{50}
9. Psalm 17(18):43: David says to God, You will make me head of the Gentiles: a people whom I knew not served me.
10. Lamentations 1:5: [of Jerusalem] Her foes have become the head, her enemies prosper, because the Lord has made her suffer for the multitude of her transgressions; her children have gone away, captives before the foe.
11 -12. Isaiah 7:8: For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin (in both cases head means ruler here: Damascus is the city that rules over Syria, and Rezin is the king who rules over Damascus).
13 -14. Isaiah 7:9: And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
15. Isaiah 9:14-16: (In the context of judgment) So the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail . . . the elder and honored man is the head,{51} and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail; for those who lead this people lead them astray. Here the leaders of the people are called head.
16. Jeremiah 31:7 (LXX 38:7): Rejoice and exult over the head of the nations.{52}
(5) We should also note in this regard what it actually means to have sixteen (or even eight) instances of a term used in a certain sense in the Septuagint. It is really a rich abundance of examples. Many times in New Testament exegesis, if a scholar can find two or three clear parallel uses in the Septuagint, he or she is very satisfied. That means we can assume that first-century Jews could read and understand the particular term in that sense. Let me give a contemporary example. Imagine that I turn to a concordance of the RSV and see that there is only one occurrence of a certain English word, such as aunt.{53} Do I conclude, That means that twentieth-century readers don't know what aunt means, and we can be especially certain of this since aunt occurs only in an obscure portion of Scripture (Leviticus 18:14), a passage that people today seldom read ? Should I conclude that people speaking English today do not know the meaning of aunt?
Certainly this would not be legitimate. Rather, I would conclude that the translators of the RSV assumed that aunt was a good, understandable English word-so commonly understood that even a single use of it in the whole Bible would be understood without its having to appear time after time in various contexts comparison of which would make its sense clear. They put it in expecting readers to understand it. The fact that they used it meant that they thought it was a commonly understood term.
The same principle is true with the Septuagint. If I find even two or three clear instances of a word used in a certain sense, I can rightly conclude that readers in the first century A.D. could have understood the word in that sense. The translators wrote expecting that the readers would understand. But in the case of kephale meaning authority over, ruler, we have not two or three examples, but sixteen (or at least eight, even by the minimal count of the Mickelsens, or nine, according to Payne). That is really an abundance of evidence for kephale meaning leader or authority over.
In conclusion, to those who say, Only eight examples in the Septuagint, I think it fair to respond, A very significant eight examples, and more accurately sixteen, and compared to zero examples for 'source,' they look very convincing.
b. Other Meanings for kephale Claimed by the Mickelsens: After rejecting the meaning authority over, leader for kephale, primarily on the basis of its Septuagint usage and the absence of this meaning from Liddell-Scott,{54} the Mickelsens provide other meanings for the term kephale .
In 1 Corinthians 11:3, they say kephale means source, base or derivation.{55} Now I recognize that one lexicon gives the meaning source for kephale .{56} But when the Mickelsens affirm that base and derivation are possible translations of kephale they are claiming senses that no lexicon has ever proposed, and they are doing it with no examples of kephale meaning these things in any other literature either. Where do they get these meanings?
In Ephesians 5:23, where it says that the husband is the head of the wife, they say that head means one who brings to completion (p. 108). They explain, the husband is to give himself up to enable (bring to completion) all that his wife is meant to be (p. 110).
Then with respect to Colossians 1:18, where it says that Christ is the head of the body, the church, the Mickelsens say that head means exalted originator and completer (p. 108). We should note that the Mickelsens call these ordinary Greek meanings (p. 105) for kephale , and tell us that these are Greek meanings that would have been familiar to the first readers (p. 110). But a number of these ordinary and familiar Greek meanings have never been seen in any lexicon or claimed in any writing on the meaning of kephale before the Mickelsens' work in 1986. The meaning exalted originator and completer is in no lexicon. The meaning one who brings to completion is in no lexicon. The meaning base, derivation is in no lexicon.
But if this is so, then what convincing examples from Greek literature do the Mickelsens give to show these to be familiar and ordinary meanings? They give none. Then what authorities do they quote to support these new meanings? They give none. In short, they have given no evidence to support their assertions that these are ordinary meanings. It would not seem wise to accept these meanings as legitimate senses for kephale .
In fact, this attempt to give some alternate sense to kephale in New Testament contexts where the meaning authority over seems so clearly evident from the contexts is one more example of a disturbing tendency among evangelical feminist scholars today, a tendency to search for any meaning but authority for the word kephale in the New Testament. Even in Colossians 2:10 (where Christ is called the head of all rule and authority ) and Ephesians 1:20-24 (where God has exalted Christ far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church ), the Mickelsens still are unable to admit the meaning authority over, but say that head here means rather top or crown (extremity) (p. 106). When this can happen even in texts where authority is so clearly specified in context, one wonders if it is a prior doctrinal conviction rather than sound linguistic analysis that has led to their conclusions in these texts.
c. The Argument from Liddell-Scott: Although all the lexicons that specialize in the New Testament period list ruler, leader, or authority over as a meaning for kephale at the time of the New Testament,{57} the Mickelsens and others have strongly emphasized that Liddell-Scott does not include this meaning. What is the significance of this? First, our earlier survey showed that the meaning authority over was not very common-indeed, is hardly found at all-before the Septuagint, about the second century B.C. Nonetheless, the evidence we have cited above showing around forty examples of this meaning indicates that the omission from Liddell-Scott must have been an oversight that we hope will be corrected in a subsequent edition. In fact, Joseph Fitzmyer recently wrote, The next edition of the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones will have to provide a sub-category within the metaphorical uses of kephale in the sense of 'leader, ruler.'{58}
Second, Liddell-Scott does list under the adjective kephalaios ( head like ) the following meanings: metaphorical, of persons, the head or chief (pp. 944-945). Liddell-Scott then lists eight examples of this sense. Similarly, for kephalourgos (literally, head of work ), it lists the meaning foreman of works (p. 945). Therefore, the meaning authority over for kephale itself would probably have been understandable even if not commonly used in earlier periods well before the time of the New Testament.
This suggests a possible reason why the noun kephale itself was not found in the earlier history of the language with the meaning authority, ruler. Perhaps because the adjective kephalaios or this adjective used as a substantive could function with the meaning chief, ruler in an earlier period, there may have been no need for the noun kephale to take a similar meaning. Yet later in the development of the language the noun kephale also came to take this sense.
2. (1986) Ruth A. Tucker, Response
In this article Ruth Tucker finds examples of kephale meaning authority over in Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-220 A.D.), Tertullian (ca. 169-215 A.D.), Cyprian (ca. 200-55 A.D.), and other early writers. Tucker says:
In conclusion, it is my impression that whatever the word kephale meant to the apostle Paul as he wrote 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, it was generally interpreted by the church fathers and by Calvin to mean authority, superior rank, or preeminence. These findings bring into question some of the Mickelsens' assumptions-particularly that the superior rank meaning of kephale is not one of the ordinary Greek meanings but rather a meaning associated with the English word head. More research needs to be done in this area, but it seems clear that the fathers used this so-called English meaning long before they could have in any way been influenced by the English language. (p. 117)
We can only note here that Tucker's survey of writings that followed the New Testament period gives some support to the idea that the meaning authority over was a recognized meaning at the time of the New Testament as well.
3. (1986) Philip B. Payne, Response
In this response to the Mickelsens' article, Philip Payne repeats the Septuagint argument concerning the infrequent use of kephale to translate the Hebrew term ro'sh when it meant leader, ruler. I have discussed that argument at length in the previous analysis of the Mickelsens' article.
Payne also adds some examples where he claims that kephale means source of life.
a. Philo: Payne's first example comes from Philo, The Preliminary Studies 61: And Esau is the progenitor [ho genarches] of all the clan here described, the head as of a living animal [kephale de hos zoou].
The sense of head here is difficult to determine. Payne suggests the meaning source of life for head, a specific kind of source that has never before been given in any lexicon. Yet it is possible that Philo thought of the physical head of an animal as in some sense energizing or giving life to the animal-this would then be a simile in which Esau (a representative of stubborn disobedience in this context) gives life to a whole list of other sins that Philo has been describing as a family in this allegory. However, the word translated above as progenitor (genarches) also can mean ruler of created beings (Liddell-Scott, p. 342). In that case the text would read: And Esau is the ruler of all the clan here described, the head as of a living animal. Here the meaning would be that Esau is the ruler over the rest of the sinful clan, and head would mean ruler, authority over. It seems impossible from the context to decide clearly for one meaning or the other in this text.
The next text cited by Payne is Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 125. This was discussed above in the response to Richard Cervin's article. In this quotation the sense source of life must also be seen as a possible meaning, but the sense ruler, authority over is also quite possible, and, as we argued above, in the context of commenting on God's promise to make the people the head and not the tail so that they would rule over other nations, the meaning ruler, authority over seems more likely.
b. Artemidorus: Next, Payne cites some texts from Artemidorus Daldiani (late second century A.D.) in his work Oneirocritica (or The Interpretation of Dreams). Payne gives the following citations:
Another man dreamt that he was beheaded. In real life, the father of this man, too, died; for as the head [kephale ] is the source of life and light for the whole body, he was responsible for the dreamer's life and light. . . . The head [kephale ] indicates one's father. (Oneirocritica 1.2)
The head [kephale ] resembles parents in that it is the cause [aitia] of one's living. (Oneirocritica 1.35)
The head [kephale ] signifies the father of the dreamer. . . . Whenever, then a poor man who has a rich father dreams that his own head has been removed by a lion and that he dies as a result, it is probable that his father will die. . . . For the head [kephale ] represents the father; the removal of the head [kephale ], the death of the father. (Oneirocritica 3.66)
Do these examples show that kephale could be used metaphorically to mean source ? If we give a fuller context than Payne provided in his article, we can see that these do not provide an example of head meaning source, for no person is in these texts called head. But what the text does show is that Artemidorus pointed out various functions of the head in a human body and then said that these functions signified something in interpreting dreams (the whole text is an explanation of how to interpret dreams).
In the following context we see that Artemidorus gives many different interpretations to the dream of being beheaded, but in none of them would we say that this text adds new meanings to the word head itself:
If a man dreams that he has been beheaded . . . it is inauspicious both for a man with parents and a man with children. For the head resembles parents in that it is the cause of one's living. It is like children because of the face and because of the resemblance. . . . Also, a man who owned a house has lost it. For the head is as it were the house of the senses. . . .
To bankers, usurers, men who have to collect subscriptions, shipmasters, merchants, and all who collect money, it signifies loss of capital because the word for capital is derived from the word for head. . . . To a slave who enjoys the confidence of his master, it signifies that he will lose that confidence. . . . But to other slaves, the dream signifies freedom. For the head is the master of the body, and when it is cut off, it signifies that the slave is separated from his master and will be free. . . .
If someone who is at sea sees this dream, it signifies that the sailyard of the ship will be lost, unless it is one of the sailors who has seen it. For, in these cases, I have observed that it signifies death to their superiors. For the boatswain is the superior of the ordinary sailor; the officer in command of the bow is the boatswain's superior; the steersman is the superior of the officer who commands the bow; and the shipmaster is the superior of the steersman. . . .
To have two or three heads is auspicious for an athlete. For he will be crowned in as many contests. (Oneirocritica 1. 35){59}
This larger context shows us that in all of these examples the word kephale simply means the physical head of a person's body. When Artemidorus speaks of losing one's head or having three heads in a dream, he is simply speaking of a physical head. When he says that the head signifies something in the dream, he is still speaking of the physical head and then giving a symbolic interpretation to it.
It would certainly be illegitimate to take this text and make a list of many new meanings that the word kephale could take in ancient Greek. We could not take that text, for example, and say that head now also means (1) house, because Artemidorus says that the head is the house of the senses ; (2) monetary capital, because Artemidorus says that the loss of the head signifies loss of capital ; (3) master of a slave, for Artemidorus says that the head is the master of the body ; (4) sailyard of a ship ; (5) superior naval officer ; and (6) athletic contest. All of these are simply symbolic interpretations that Artemidorus has given and do not constitute new metaphorical meanings for kephale .{60}
However, one further observation must be made from this text. Because Artemidorus, in speaking about the physical head of a human body, says that the head resembles parents in that it is the cause (Greek aitia) of one's living (literally, of life, tou ze n), we must recognize that there was an awareness that the physical head was in some sense the cause (or one might say source ) of life. Perhaps this is just a common-sense observation of the fact that people who are beheaded do not continue to live! But it may also reflect a more complex understanding of the mental faculties located in the head-Artemidorus does say that the head is the house of the senses. In this case it would be similar to the Philo quotations mentioned above where Philo apparently thought of the head as giving energy and direction to the body.
Whether the fact that (1) some in the ancient world thought of the physical head as somehow the source of energy and life for the body would have led to (2) a metaphorical use of head to actually mean source, or not, we cannot say without some clear examples demonstrating such a use. It is very similar to the case of the quotations mentioned earlier from Plato, Philo, and Plutarch, in which the head was said to be the ruler of all the parts within us. Those quotations showed that a metaphorical use of kephale to mean ruler would have been possible and probably understandable in the ancient world, but it did not mean that that metaphorical use actually occurred. In order to demonstrate that we needed to look at the thirty or forty texts where someone was actually called the head of something (such as the Roman empire, the church, the nation of Israel, etc.). In this case however, no metaphorical uses of kephale in the sense of source have been found in the Artemidorus quotations.{61}
In conclusion, kephale in all these Artemidorus texts simply means physical head of the human body.
c. Orphic Fragments 21a: As an additional example of kephale meaning source, Payne also cites Orphic Fragments 21a, Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle, and from Zeus all things are completed. But Cervin's analysis of this text is quite valid: he says, This entire fragment is ambiguous (p. 90).{62}
d. 1 Corinthians 11:3: In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul writes, I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Payne objects to the sense authority over in this text because he thinks that it would imply a theological error:
Under the interpretation that head means authority the present tense of estin requires that Christ now in the present time after his resurrection and ascension is under the authority of God. Such a view has been condemned throughout most of church history as subordinationist Christology. (pp. 126-127)
But Payne here has simply misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been held throughout the church from at least the time of the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D. From that time the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son has been taken to imply a relationship between the Father and the Son that eternally existed and that will always exist-a relationship that includes a subordination in role, but not in essence or being. Certainly Scripture speaks of that when it says, for example, that when Christ had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus is at the right hand, but God the Father is still on the throne.
So Charles Hodge can write:
The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) The principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority. . . . The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation. . . .
The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit . . . and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal. (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 460-62){63}
Similarly, A. H. Strong writes:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation. . . .
The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority. . . .
We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence.{64}
Payne has simply misrepresented subordinationist Christology. Subordinationism has generally meant not the orthodox view that there is subordination in role in the Trinity, but the heretical view found, for example, in Arianism, in which a subordinate essence or being of the Son was advocated, so that Christ could not be said to be of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father. The orthodox doctrine has always been that there is equality in essence and subordination in role and that these two are consistent with each other. Certainly this is consistent with Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that the head of Christ is God, thus indicating a distinction in role in which primary authority and leadership among the persons of the Trinity has always been and will always be the possession of God the Father.{65}
4. (1986) Walter L. Liefeld, Women, Submission, and Ministry in 1 Corinthians{66}
In this essay Dr. Liefeld comments on the dispute over the meaning of kephale .
The meaning source, adduced by Bedale as a clue to some of Paul's passages, lacks clear evidence . . . in my judgment, however, it is no longer possible, given Grudem's research, to dismiss the idea of rulership from the discussion. (p. 139)
I would of course concur with Liefeld at this point. However, Liefeld then goes on to suggest a different sense for kephale , prominent part, or prominent or honored member (pp. 139-140).
This is similar to the suggestion by Cervin discussed above.{67} Once again it must be said that a number of texts might be found in which kephale speaks of a kind of prominence derived from ruling authority or power that is possessed by (for example) the king of a nation or the head of a tribe, or from Christ's position as the head of the church. But it does not seem possible to demonstrate a sense of honored part or prominent part apart from a nuance of ruling authority as well.
Second, this suggestion has been mentioned previously in no lexicons (to my knowledge), and thus one wonders why it is necessary when the sense leader, authority over will fit as well or better.
Third, it is doubtful that the sense prominent part really fits the context of texts like 1 Corinthians 11:3. If Paul had meant to imply the idea of prominence in this text, then, instead of saying the head of the woman is the man, he would have had to say, the head of the family is the husband, and instead of saying the head of every man is Christ, he would have had to say, the head of mankind is Christ. Instead of saying, the head of Christ is God, he would have had to say, the head of the Godhead is the Father. But he did not say these things, in which he could have mentioned the prominent or most honored member of a larger group. Rather, he mentioned two individuals in each set of relationships, thus giving a sense that much more readily allows the meaning authority over than prominent part.
5. Gilbert Bilezikian, A Critical Examination of Wayne Grudem's Treatment of Kephale in Ancient Greek Texts{68}
Dr. Bilezikian has given some criticisms of my earlier article that I accept as valid and that are similar to those by Cervin in the article discussed above.{69} Among them are: (1) The need for a separate category, ruling part, to distinguish five examples where the physical head of a person is said to rule over the human body (p. 220). I agreed with this suggestion in the discussion of Cervin's article. (2) The need to delete two examples from my list of forty-nine because I had miscounted them in my final enumeration.{70}
However, I must differ with Bilezikian's critique at several other points.
a. Lexicons: Bilezikian suggests that some lexicons list the meaning source and others list the meaning ruler, authority over, and it is just a question of which lexicon one chooses to use. He says,
This lack of lexical agreement on the meaning of kephale is partly responsible for the frustration of scholars who have been attempting, in recent years, to understand the meaning of male/female relations in the Pauline epistles. Each one here is aware of the battle of the lexicons that has been waged by Bible scholars who have written on this issue during the last two decades. . . . They have been flinging their favorite lexicons back and forth at each other's heads. (pp. 218-219)
What Bilezikian fails to make clear is that, although one lexicon (Liddell-Scott) does list source, origin as a sense when kephale is applied to the end point of something like a river or a span of time, nevertheless, no lexicon has ever yet listed source as a metaphorical meaning for kephale when applied to persons. By contrast, all the major lexicons for the New Testament period list a meaning such as authority over or ruler, leader as a meaning for kephale when applied to persons.{71} It is simply misleading to talk about a battle of the lexicons.
b. Individual texts: In the examination of the individual texts where I found the sense authority over, Bilezikian differs from Cervin in that he finds the meaning source in almost every text in which I saw the meaning ruler or authority over. We do not need to examine every one of those quotations again, but a few instances will give the direction of Bilezikian's argument.
(1) Herodotus 7.148: The Delphic oracle warns the Argives to protect those with full citizenship from attack and thus the remainder of the population will be protected, saying, guarding your head from the blow and the head shall shelter the body.{72}
Here Bilezikian says, The notion of an authority function is completely absent. . . . This text describes headship not as 'authority over' but as a source of protection . . . which item . . . should be classified as 'Source, origin' (p. 221).
But here we can try substituting leaders and source to see which makes better sense:
My suggestion: guarding your leaders from the blow; and the leaders shall shelter the body.
Bilezikian's suggestion: guarding your source from the blow; and the source shall shelter the body.
The first alternative is preferable because the idea of guarding leaders is an understandable one for a population. To tell a population to guard its source would make no sense, for they would not know what was being referred to.
Bilezikian could respond that he was not arguing for the meaning source in this text, but the meaning source of protection. But this illustrates a fundamental error in his argument: in order to make any of his explanations work, he must assume that kephale means not just source but source of something, and he then varies the something from text to text so that he actually gives kephale many new senses (source of protection, source of vitality, source of well-being, etc.). But this is not sound analysis: kephale does not take all these new specialized meanings, never before found in any lexicon, attested only in one text, and discovered only now for the first time by Bilezikian. In actuality, the fact that he must supply source of something and make the something different each time shows even more clearly that source alone is not a legitimate meaning for kephale .
A few more examples will illustrate this point, and in each one when we try substituting the simple meaning source it will be evident how this meaning is unacceptable:
(23) Plutarch, Pelopidas 2. 1. 3: in an army, the light-armed troops are like the hands, the cavalry like the feet, the line of men-at-arms itself like chest and breastplate, and the general is like the head.
Bilezikian says, The general's function as the 'head' of the troops is explained as the general's being the source of their safety, the cause of their continued existence. . . . This instance of kephale should be tabulated under 'Source, origin' (pp. 226-227).
Bilezikian treats a number of examples in this same way: he looks around in the context until he can find something that the person called head is the source of, whether leadership or protection or financial support, etc. This is not hard to do because in the nature of things in this world, everything is the source of something else-the ground is the source of food, rivers are the source of water, trees are the source of leaves, cows are the source of milk, even rocks are a source of stability and support. Conversely, to take the example above, the soldiers are also a source of strength and support for the general. But that does not mean that hand or foot or chest can all mean source.
Some other examples show the same procedure:
(26) Plutarch, Galba, 4. 3: Vindex . . . wrote to Galba inviting him to assume the imperial power, and thus to serve what was a vigorous body in need of a head.
Although this was an invitation to Galba to become emperor of Rome, Bilezikian says, They needed an emperor in Rome who would 'serve' them as the head 'serves a vigorous body. '. . . Headship is viewed in this text as a source of increased vitality. . . . This instance of kephale is to be listed under 'source, origin' (pp. 228-229).
In this quotation the body in question is the Gallic provinces. Once again we can substitute terms to see which is the most likely meaning:
My suggestion: To assume the imperial power, and thus to serve what was a vigorous province in need of a leader.
Bilezikian's suggestion: To assume the imperial power, and thus to serve what was a vigorous province in need of a source.
Once again, the meaning leader makes sense in the context, for it was leadership that this section of the empire needed. But the meaning source would have made no sense-who would have said that a province that already existed needed a source?
(30) Hermas, Similitudes, 7.3: The man is told that his family cannot be punished in any way other way than if you, the head of the house be afflicted.
Bilezikian objects that the next sentence should be added to the quotation. It says, For when you are afflicted, they also will necessarily be afflicted, but while you prosper, they cannot suffer any affliction! He then says, The full quote defines the role of the head in regard to the family as 'provider,' the source of its well-being. . . . This instance belongs in Grudem's category 3, 'Source, origin' (pp. 230-231).
Once again we can substitute terms to see which is a more convincing translation:
My suggestion: The family cannot be punished in any other way than if you, the leader of the house be afflicted.
Bilezikian's suggestion: The family cannot be punished in any other way than if you, the source of the house be afflicted.
The idea of leader of a family would be quite understandable. But the idea that the father is the source of the family would make no sense with respect to the wife (or any possible servants) in the household, for the father was certainly not the source of them.
Bilezikian's error is simply this: whenever something functions as a source, he says that the name of that thing can actually mean source. But on this account almost any word could mean source. And in fact almost any word could mean anything else as well. Using this procedure, we could easily make kephale mean just the opposite of source -we could make it mean, for example, recipient : Since the general is the recipient of support from the army, we could say that kephale means recipient in that text. Since the Roman emperor is the recipient of support and taxes from the provinces, we could say that kephale means recipient here also, etc.
The fact that Bilezikian's procedure could lead to almost any noun meaning source and that it can also make a noun mean just the opposite of source should warn us against the error of such a procedure-it has no controls and no basis in sound linguistic analysis.
Endnotes to Appendix 1 Part B
{24}So also the editor in the Loeb Classical Library edition, p. 388, note c.
{25}History of the Septuagint Text, in Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: W rttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965), p. xxvi.
{26}H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1900), p. 31.
{27}Ibid., pp. 39-40.
{28}I did not include these examples in my earlier article because they seemed to me possibly to represent prominence instead of rule or authority. But reexamination of the contexts and the realization that exaltation to high position in the Old Testament seems inevitably to carry with it some idea of authority as well have convinced me that authority is in view in these examples also.
{29}In subsequent personal correspondence to me (6/5/90), Dr. Cervin agrees that pre-eminence is not a meaning given in LSJ, and indicates that on reconsideration he now thinks the meaning prominence would be more appropriate, because this meaning does not carry the overtone of superiority which is implicit in [the meaning pre-eminence]. Cervin indicates that, although this meaning prominence is not given in LSJ either, it seems to him a valid aspect of the Greek metaphorical use of kephale because it is closely related to the idea of being the physical top or end of a person or object, and therefore the idea of prominence is implicit in the metaphor. In response, the same objections given above seem to me also to apply to this new suggestion: though it may be an overtone of the metaphor, it is not a necessary meaning, it has never been suggested in any lexicon, and, in any case, when applied to persons it cannot be dissociated from the dominant sense of authority, leader, ruler. Why must people search for any meaning but authority over ?
{30}Berkeley Mickelsen and Alvera Mickelsen, "Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?" Christianity Today, October 5, 1979, p. 23.
{31}The existence of this unusual allegation in Dr. Cervin's article is particularly puzzling since I informed him in more detail about my procedure before he corrected the article for publication. In fact, this correspondence apparently led to a further footnote (p. 111, note 38), in which he says, Grudem explains (p. e.) that he had based his count on English translations rather than on the Greek text. The impression given the reader is that my entire summary was based on counting English translations, whereas what I explained in the letter to Dr. Cervin was simply what I have said above regarding the two examples that do not exist (see above pp. 445-446), namely, that after I had listed all my examples for the article, my counting erroneously included two examples where the word head was repeated a second time in the English text. But the entire compilation of examples was certainly based on original Greek texts.
{32}This was an address given at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Atlanta, October 20, 1986, to which I gave one of the scheduled responses. (My written critique below contains the major substance of my oral response given at that time.)
{33}It should be noted that though the publication date of Women, Authority and the Bible, in which articles 1-4 appear, is 1986, the essays were written for a conference in 1984, before most of the authors had access to my 1985 article.
{34}Pages 46-47, 52-53.
{35}Philip B. Payne, "Response," in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Mickelsen, pp. 121-124.
{36}Gordon D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 502-503.
{37}The Mickelsens use the number 8 out of 180; Payne (p. 123) uses 9, but the form of the argument is the same.
{38}Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Mickelsen, p. 104.
{39}Payne, "Response", ibid., p. 123. In footnote 35, p. 123, Payne explains that he only counts nine exceptions (verses where kephale means leader ): Judges 11:11; 2 Samuel 22:44; Psalm 18:43; Isaiah 7:8-9; Lamentations 1:5; Deuteronomy 28:13, 44; and Isaiah 9:14, because five others are in variant readings found in some but not all manuscripts (Judges 10:18; 11:8-9; 1 Kings (LXX 3 Kings) 8:1; 20:12), and he thinks that in yet three others (Deuteronomy 32:42; 1 Chronicles 12:19; Psalm 140:10) the word refers to the physical head and is not a metaphor for leader or authority (in these last three he is correct, and I did not cite those as examples of leader ).
{40}Fee, First Corinthians, p. 503.
{41}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.
We should also note that when the New Testament wants to say that Christ became the source of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:9), it uses not kephale but a perfectly good Greek word meaning source, aitios, source, cause. This does not of course prove that kephale could not also mean source in a metaphorical sense, but it shows that in both the Old Testament (Genesis 2:10) and the New Testament (Hebrews 5:9), where there is a text that unambiguously speaks of source in the sense that the Mickelsens and others claim kephale takes, the term used is not kephale but something that means source without question.
Philip Payne, "Response", p. 119, n. 21, quotes S. C. Woodhouse, English-Greek Dictionary (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 19322) to show that kephale does not mean authority or chief. Although we think that may be an oversight in light of the examples we earlier adduced, Payne should perhaps also have mentioned that Woodhouse lists under source of rivers, etc. pege , krene , and krounos, and under origin arche , pege , and rhiza ( root ), but not kephale in either case. It does not seem fair to cite Woodhouse to show lack of support on one side but fail to note that he gives no support to the other side either.
Moreover, Payne fails to tell the reader that Woodhouse's Dictionary is written to help students write compositions in Attic Greek and is specifically taken from the vocabulary of authors from Aeschylus to Demosthenes (pp. v, vi) (ca. 500 B.C.-322 B.C.). It does not cover the Koine Greek of the New Testament at all. Such a citation is troubling in a widely read popular book, for it conveys to the non-specialist reader an appearance of scholarly investigation while in actual fact there is little substantive relevance for it in the present discussion.
{42}The Mickelsens actually dismiss six texts as having textual variants (p. 104), but they do not specify which those are. I am using the number five from the response by Philip Payne (pp. 122-123).
{43}They do not specify exactly which texts they are not counting because of textual variants, but these five do have variants in the readings of Codex Alexandrinus, one of the major ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint.
{44}The second instance in Isaiah 7:8 is found in several manuscripts and omitted only by Sinaiticus among major manuscripts.
{45}Once again the enumeration is not exact between the Mickelsens and Payne. The Mickelsens say that four examples have the head-tail metaphor, but do not list them. Payne specifies these three texts in his response, and I have used his number here.
{46}Mickelsen and Mickelsen, What Does Kephale Mean . . .? p. 103.
{47}Payne, "Response", p. 123, n. 35.
{48}See note 38 with reference to my inclusion of Deuteronomy 28:13, 44; Jeremiah 31:7 (LXX 38:7).
{49}In addition to the three verses listed in the previous footnote, the articles by Payne and the Mickelsens have persuaded me to look again at Lamentations 1:5 ( her foes have become the head; her enemies prosper ), and to count this as a legitimate instance of kephale meaning leader or authority over. These four examples, together with the deletion of the one I had erroneously counted (see above, p. 445, for discussion), bring my total to sixteen in the Septuagint rather than the thirteen I had previously listed.
{50}Philip Payne (article 3, p. 123) disagrees with the sense authority over in this text because he says the translators replaced the idea of leader with 'heads [meaning tops] of the staffs' they carried. I discussed this interpretation on pp. 441-442, above, in response to Richard Cervin.
{51}In this second occurrence of head in this verse, the LXX has arche (here in the sense of leader, ruler), not kephale .
{52}Joseph Fitzmyer says of this passage, The notion of supremacy or authority is surely present, and expressed by kephale ( Another Look, p. 508).
{53}In fact, aunt only occurs once in the English Bible (RSV), at Leviticus 18:14. There are many other commonly understood English words that occur only once in the Bible, such as (using the RSV): abstinence, acquaintance, afternoon, agent, anklet, anvil, armpit, aroma, arsenal, audience. Other common words occur only twice:, ambassador, ant, antelope, ape, awl.
{54}I discuss the absence of the meaning leader, authority over from Liddell-Scott in the next section of this article.
{55}Page 107.
{56}I discussed the legitimacy of using Liddell-Scott's definition of source above, pp. 432-433, 453-454.
{57}My earlier article (pp. 47-48) cites definitions from BAGD, Thayer, Cremer, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (henceforth referred to as NIDNTT), and (for the Septuagint) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (henceforth referred to as TDNT). See also note 69.
{58}Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Another look at Kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3," NTS 35 (1989), p. 511.
Richard Cervin is hardly correct when he says the contributors and editors of [Liddell-Scott] included a team of theologians, Milligan among them (p. 86). In fact, the Preface to Liddell-Scott mentions no team of theologians but simply says that the results of the study of the meanings of words in the New Testament are readily accessible and mentions some lexicons that are generally sufficient (p. ix). H. Stuart Jones, the editor of the most recent edition of Liddell-Scott, mentions only that Professor Milligan sent him some advance proofs of his specialty lexicon of the papyri as they illustrate New Testament usage. Jones also mentions A. H. McNeil and A. Llewellyn Davies regarding their advice on the Septuagint and the Hexapla, but the preface mentions nothing else concerning any team of theologians.
{59}This translation is quoted from Artemidorus Daldianus, The Interpretation of Dreams (= Oneirocritica), translated by Robert J. While (Park Ridge, NJ: Nooyes, 1975), pp. 34-35; the Greek text is found in Artemidori Daldiani Oneirocriticon Libre V, ed. Robert A. Pack (Leipzig: Teubner, 1963), pp. 43-45.
{60}Although Payne uses incorrect reasoning to derive the meaning source from these uses in Artemidorus, it is additionally disappointing to see that he quoted this very obscure text (accessible only at highly specialized libraries) to show instances where Artemidorus said that the head symbolized the source of something but did not inform the reader that in the very same section he quoted (Oneirocritica 1.35) Artemidorus also said that the head symbolized the superior of a sailor and the master of a slave, and that the head was the master of the body -all meanings that Payne denies.
Moreover, in order to support his contention that the ancient Greek world through the time of Paul commonly believed that the heart, not the head, was the center of emotions and spirit, the central governing place of the body (pp. 119-120), Payne cites only one ancient author, Aristotle, and then cites the Oxford Classical Dictionary article on Anatomy and Physiology as saying about Aristotle that, having found the brain to be devoid of sensation, he concluded that it could not be associated with it. The function of the brain was to keep the heart from overheating the blood (Payne, p. 120. n. 26, citing OCD, 59). What Payne does not tell the reader is that the immediately preceding two sentences in the OCD article say that this view of Aristotle's was contrary to the commonly held view in the ancient world: Among the noteworthy erros of Aristotle is his refusal to attach importance to the brain. Intelligence he placed in the heart. This was contrary to the views of some of his medical contemporaries, contrary to the popular view, and contrary to the doctrine of the Timaeus (OCD, 59, italics mine).
So in the use of both Artemidorus and the OCD Payne has given misleading and selective quotations, and has done so from technical works that will not be checked by even one in a thousand readers of such a widely-circulated and popularly written book.
{61}Peter Cotterel and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), p. 144, concur with this analysis:
Least helpful of the types of evidence advanced, is the claim that amongst the ancients the head was often regarded as the source of a variety of substances and influences pertinent to life. The claim itself need not be doubted, but how is it relevant? Just because, say, Artemidorus . . . maintains that the head is the source of light and life for the body does not mean that the writer considered source to be a sense of the word head. Our employers are the source of our income, books are the source of our knowledge, and the good, well-watered land the source of our food, but no one in their right mind would suggest that source is a sense of the words employer, books, or land. Such would be a classic case of the confusion between the sense of a word and adjunct properties of the thing-in-the-world the word denotes.
{62}See discussion above, p. 433.
{63}Systematic Theology (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970 [reprint]) 1:460-462 (italics mine).
{64}Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1907), 342.
{65}It is troubling therefore to find the evangelical feminists Richard and Catherine Kroeger writing the article "Subordinationism in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), and asserting in the first sentence that subordinationism is a doctrine which assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. Condemned by numerous church councils, this doctrine has continued in one form or another throughout the history of the church (p. 1058, emphasis mine). When the Kroegers add the phrase or role to their definition they condemn all orthodox Christology from the Nicene Creed onward and thereby condemn a teaching that Charles Hodge says has been a teaching of the Church universal.
A similar misunderstanding is found in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), who says, If we define head as 'authority over,' then 1 Corinthians 11:3 can mean that there is a dominant to subordinate hierarchy within the Trinity, a position that does violence to the equality of the Persons of the Godhead. Early in its history, orthodox Christianity took a firm stand against any teaching that would make Christ a subordinate figure. To say that God is somehow authoritative over Christ erodes the Savior's full divinity and puts a Christian on dangerous theological ground (pp. 193-194). And Katherine Kroeger says in her appendix to this same book, The heretics would argue that although the Son is of the same substance as the Father, He is under subjection (p. 283). But these statements by Hull and Kroeger are simply false. (A strong warning against this theological tendency of evangelical feminism is seen in Robert Letham's recent article, "The Man-Woman Debate: Theological Comment," Westminster Theological Journal 52:1 [Spring 1990], pp. 65-78.)
Such an attempt to shift the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been held through the history of the church does not appear to be accidental, however, for the fact that God the Son can be eternally equal to God the Father in deity and in essence, but subordinate to the Father in authority, cuts at the heart of the feminist claim that a subordinate role necessarily implies lesser importance or lesser personhood. (Surprisingly, Millard Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986], p. 161, Similarly his Christian Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983-85], 338, 668, expresses a position similar to the Kroegers here, seeing subordination in role as non-eternal, but rather a temporary activity of members of the Trinity for a period of ministry [similarly, his Christian Theology, pp. 338, 698].)
{66}In Mickelsen and Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the Bible, pp. 134-154.
{67}Pages 447-448.
{68}Appendix in Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), pp. 215-252.
{69}Although Dr. Bilezikian wrote these criticisms before Mr. Cervin's article, they apparently came up with the criticisms independently, because Mr. Cervin does not indicate that he has seen Dr. Bilezikian's article.
{70}See above, pp. 445-446.
{71}My earlier article (pp. 47-48) cites definitions from BAGD, Thayer, Cremer, NIDNTT, and (for the Septuagint) TDNT. Since then two more lexicons have been published: the sixth edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches W rterbuch, ed. Kurt and Barbara Aland (Berlin: Walter DeGruyter, 1988), pp. 874-875, lists no such meaning as source but does give the meaning Oberhaupt ( chief, leader ) (p. 875). And the new Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols., ed. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene E. Nida (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), lists for kephale the meaning, one who is of supreme or preeminent status, in view of authority to order or command-'one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over' (vol. 1, p. 739), but they give no meaning such as source, origin. In light of such unanimity of testimony to one meaning and absence of testimony to another, it is difficult for me to understand how Dr. Bilezikian can speak of a lack of lexical agreement on the meaning of kephale (p. 218).
{72}See discussion above, p. 440.
Copyright 1997 Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. All rights reserved.
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can be ordered online through the CBMW Store.
2825 Lexington Road
Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280
Phone: 1-888-560-8210
Fax: (502) 897-4061
Email: info@cbmw.org
Web Site: www.cbmw.com
copyright © 1995-2009 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002