|
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 C
Wayne Grudem
It is proper rather to ask exactly which characteristics of a physical head were recognized in the ancient world and were evident in contexts where people were metaphorically called head. If those characteristics occur again and again in related contexts, then we can be reasonably certain that those characteristics were the ones intended by the metaphorical use of head. In fact this is what we find. It is consistently people in leadership or authority who are referred to as head. The examples cited above show that not only the general of an army, but also the Roman emperor, the head of a household, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as king of Israel, and Christ as the head of the church are all referred to metaphorically by kephale. What they share is a function of rule or authority. Moreover, several texts say explicitly that the head is the ruling part of the body.{73}
By contrast, where there are persons whose distinctive function is to be the source of something else, but where no leadership function attaches to them, the word kephale is never used. Bilezikian recognizes this and finds it surprising:
There exists no known instance of kephale used figuratively in reference to women. This is especially surprising since the meaning of kephale as source of life and servant provider would have been particularly suitable to describe roles assigned to women in antiquity. (p. 235)
He goes on to explain this absence of any examples by the fact that kephale was not frequently used in a metaphorical sense and that women were not often referred to in Greek literature (pp. 235-236), but such an explanation is hardly sufficient. When there are over forty examples referring to persons in leadership as head of something, that shows that the metaphorical use of kephale was not extremely rare. And to say that Greek literature does not talk much about women (especially in the role of mother and provider) is simply not true. What this statement of Bilezikian's actually indicates is that there are no clear examples to support his sought-after meaning, source. But when no clear evidence turns up to support one's hypothesis, it would seem better to abandon the hypothesis than to stick with it and give unsubstantiated reasons why the expected data have not been forthcoming. At least we should realize that we are being asked to accept a meaning for kephale for which no unambiguous supporting evidence has yet been provided.
Bilezikian's opposition to the idea of authority in any human relationships and in any texts that contain the word kephale carries over into the New Testament as well. Even in the three texts where authority would quite readily be admitted by almost all commentators, Bilezikian does not acknowledge it:
(43) Ephesians 1:21, 22: Paul writes that God exalted Christ far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named . . . and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.
Here Bilezikian finds not authority but the idea of source. He writes, In His headship, Christ is the source of life and increase to the church. In this passage there is no reference to headship as assumption of authority over the church (p. 244). Yet the context of exaltation above all rule and authority and power and dominion certainly shows Christ's assumption of authority.{74}
(45-46) Ephesians 5:23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Here Bilezikian says, As 'head' of the church, Christ is both the source of her life and her sustainer. . . . In this development on the meaning of headship, there is nothing in the text to suggest that head might have implications of rulership or authority (p. 245). But once again the context indicates something quite different: The previous verse says, Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. And the following verse says, As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands (verses 22-24). Although Bilezikian speaks of the idea of mutual submission, (p. 245), he fails to deal with the fact that the verb hypotasso always has to do with submission to authority in the New Testament and outside of it. Husbands are not told to be subject to their wives in this context, simply wives to husbands. And Christ is never said to be subject to the church, only the church to Christ. This idea of submission to the authority of Christ on the part of the church is impossible to remove from the context and makes it difficult to accept Bilezikian's claim that there is no suggestion of rulership or authority in the term kephale in this context.
Bilezikian goes on to say that in Ephesians 5:23 head designates the source of life ('Savior'), of servanthood ('gave himself up'), and of growth ('nourishes it') (246), and says that in their headship to their wives husbands fulfill servant roles similar to the servant ministries of Christ to the church (245).
But Bilezikian's analysis here is simply an illustration of the fact that at this key text the contrived nature of the suggested meaning source for head most clearly shows itself: How can Paul have meant that the husband is the source of the wife as Christ is the source of the church? I am certainly not the source of my wife! Nor is any husband today, nor was any husband in the church at Ephesus the source of his wife! The fact that this meaning will not fit is therefore evident in the fact that no evangelical feminist interpreter will propose the mere meaning source for this text, but each one will always shift the basis of discussion by importing some different, specialized sense, such as source of something (such as encouragement, comfort, growth, etc.) . But the fact that the meaning source itself will not fit should serve as a warning that this suggested meaning is incorrect at its foundation.
On the other hand, we should realize the importance of this text: If the husband is indeed the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, and if head carries the sense authority over or leader, then the feminist claim that there should be total equality and interchangeability of roles in marriage is simply inconsistent with the New Testament.
(48) Colossians 2:10: And you have come to fullness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
Once again Bilezikian predictably gets the meaning source out of this passage: Christ is 'the head of all power and authority' because he is the source of their existence (pp. 246-247). But it is difficult to understand how Bilezikian can see source here without any connotation of authority. If (according to Bilezikian) Christ is the source of all other rule and authority in the universe, then is He not also a far greater authority and a far greater ruler than all of these others? Even if we were to take the meaning source for kephale here (which is not necessary, for ruler or authority over fits much better), it would still be difficult to agree with Bilezikian's statement that this text, like the others, is also devoid of any mention or connotation of rulership in reference to the headship of Christ (p. 247).
In all of these individual texts, we must ask, is the meaning authority, ruler or the meaning source more persuasive? Bilezikian has not given us one example of a person called kephale where he claims the meaning source but where the person was not someone in a position of authority. Would it not be unusual-if kephale indeed means source and not authority-that people who are called head are all rulers and leaders? We do not find that wives and mothers are called heads. We do not find that soldiers who are the source of strength and power for an army are called heads. We do not find that citizens who are the source of strength for a nation are called heads.
Rather, the king of Egypt is a head, the general of an army is a head, the Roman emperor is a head, David the king of Israel is a head, the leaders of the tribes of Israel are heads, and, in the New Testament, the husband is the head of the wife and Christ is the head of the church and God the Father is the head of Christ. No one in a non-leadership position is called head. Why? Perhaps because there was a sense in the ancient world that kephale , when used of persons, meant someone in a position of rule or authority, just as the head was said by secular as well as Jewish writers to be the ruling part of the body.
c. 1 Corinthians 11:3: Bilezikian alleges, Grudem adopts the view that this text describes a chain of command, moving from the top of a hierarchy of power to the bottom, whereby God the Father is the 'authority' over God the Son, Christ is the authority over every man, and man is the authority over the woman (pp. 241-242).
This statement is simply false. I have never taught or written that there is a chain of command in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Neither (to my knowledge) have other responsible advocates of a complementarian position with regard to men and women. The idea of a chain of command suggests that the wife can only relate to God through her husband rather than directly. But this is certainly false. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3 simply sets up three distinct relationships: the headship of God the Father in the Trinity, the headship of Christ over every man, and the headship of a man over a woman. But certainly every woman is able to relate directly to God through Christ, not simply through her husband.
d. A Fundamental Opposition to the Idea of Authority: A fundamental commitment of Bilezikian's is evident in his unwillingness to see any authority in the New Testament view of marriage (or apparently in the relationship of Christ to the church):
The New Testament contains no text where Christ's headship to the church connotes a relationship of authority. Likewise, the New Testament contains no text where a husband's headship to his wife connotes a relationship of authority. (pp. 248-249)
He then goes on to say that the existence of any authority structure in marriage would paganize the marriage relationship. Regarding husband/wife relationships, he says:
The imposition of an authority structure upon this exquisite balance of reciprocity would paganize the marriage relationship and make the Christ/church paradigm irrelevant to it. (p. 249)
As far as I can understand this sentence, it implies that any existence of authority within marriage is a pagan concept because it would paganize the marriage relationship. Does Bilezikian mean, then, that the existence of any authority between parents and children is also a pagan concept? And if the existence of authority within marriage would make the Christ/church paradigm irrelevant to it, he must mean that there is no authority relationship between Christ and the church either-for if Christ did have authority over the church, then certainly the paradigm of Christ and the church would not be irrelevant to an authority structure within marriage.
What seems to me to be both amazing and disappointing in this statement is the length to which Bilezikian will go in order to carry out his fundamental opposition to the idea of authority within human relationships. A commitment to oppose any idea of the husband's authority over the wife has apparently led him ultimately to say that authority within marriage is always a pagan idea and-it seems-to imply that Christ's authority over the church would be a pagan idea as well.
At this point we must object and insist that authority and submission to authority are not pagan concepts. They are truly divine concepts, rooted in the eternal nature of the Trinity for all eternity and represented in the eternal submission of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. To resist the very idea of authority structures that have been appointed by God (whether in marriage, in the family, in civil government, in church leadership, or in Christ's authority over the church) is ultimately to encourage us to disobey God's will. If effective, such an argument will only drive us away from conformity to the image of Christ. If we are to live lives pleasing to God, we must submit to the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom God has placed far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named . . . and has put all things under his feet, and has made him head over all things for the church (Ephesians 1:21-22).
6. Catherine Clark Kroeger, The Classical Concept of Head as 'Source'{75}
This article by Catherine Kroeger cites many passages from Greek literature in an attempt to demonstrate that kephale meant source in the ancient world. Many have found this essay persuasive and thought it did what needed to be done; that is, they have read it and concluded that it finally produced many examples where kephale clearly means source and found these examples in classical Greek literature as well. (Note that the title claims to be considering the Classical concept of head as source.)
In response, the first point that must be made is that the essay is wrongly and in fact misleadingly titled. The essay is not at all about the Classical concept of head as source but rather should be titled, The Late Patristic Concept of Head as Source. In fact, four of the six authors Kroeger quotes in order to show that kephale means source are taken from the entry in Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon (p. 749), and the actual quotations she gives in her article are also taken from that entry on kephale .
Second, are these quotations persuasive? The actual new quotations given in Kroeger's article, in addition to the material from Philo, Artemidorus, and the Orphic Fragments (all of which have been examined above), include the following six authors (but Kroeger does not mention the date of any of them):
- Athanasius (fifth century A.D.)
- Cyril of Alexandria (died 444 A.D.)
- Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428 A.D.)
- Basil (the Great) (329-379 A.D.)
- Eusebius (died 339 A.D.)
- Photius (died 891 A.D.)
Apart from these six late patristic writers, Kroeger cites no new metaphorical uses of kephale in her article. (See below on her non-metaphorical examples from all periods of Greek literature.)
This means that in her article full of extensive citations of Greek texts, an article that therefore gives the appearance of extensive citations of Classical Greek literature (literature from long before the time of the New Testament), Kroeger has misleadingly claimed in her title to be giving such evidence. She has also concealed that fact from readers by failing to give any dates for the patristic writers she quotes.
Since all the additional metaphorical examples cited come from the fourth century A.D. and later, it does not seem that they are very helpful for determining New Testament usage, especially in light of Ruth Tucker's research showing that earlier Fathers took kephale to mean authority and not source.{76} Here it is appropriate to quote what Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen say about such late material: 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.{77}
Yet another highly misleading aspect of Dr. Kroeger's quotations is that she translates them in such a way that it appears that the authors are defining head to mean source, whereas that is not at all a necessary translation. For example, she translates a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria as follows:
Therefore of our race he become 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. . . . Because head means source, He established the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. (p. 268).
Kroeger then says, In case you have lost count, kephale is defined as 'source' (arche) no less than four times in this single paragraph (p. 269). The texts would then all read, head, which is ruler.
What Kroeger fails to tell the reader is that in every one of these sentences where she renders head, which is source, we could also translate the word arche as ruler or leader or beginning (without any connotation of source). Kroeger fails to tell the reader that these texts are still somewhat ambiguous, because the word arche can mean either beginning or ruler, authority.{78}
Moreover, several of the quotations Kroeger gives regarding authors who comment on 1 Corinthians 11:3 are from orthodox writers who were involved in the great Trinitarian controversy of the fourth and fifth centuries. None of them would have said that God the Father was the source of being of God the Son in any sense that would have meant that the Son was created. Yet we should note that in 1 Corinthians 11:3 Kroeger and many others who argue for the meaning source must have the meaning source of being in order for Christ to be the head of every man and the man to be the head of the woman in reference to Adam and Eve. But this sense of source will simply not fit any orthodox conception of 1 Corinthians 11:3, for then it would mean that the Son was created. How could these quotations then mean that God was the source of Christ in that sense? For no orthodox writer would have said anything that implied that the Father created the Son.
Furthermore, even if one were to grant that Kroeger has found some examples where kephale takes the meaning source, the point still remains that there is no instance of source apart from authority. For example, the Son is never said to be the head of the Father, nor is the wife ever said to be the head of the husband. The conclusion is that head again (and as in all the earlier cases) always applies to the one with greatest authority, and even if one sees a nuance of source in some of these texts, the nuance of authority inevitably goes with it.
Another line of argument in Dr. Kroeger's article is the listing of many examples in which the physical head of a person is seen as the source of various things such as hair, nasal secretions, earwax, and so forth (pp. 269-273). Kroeger asks, do these texts not show that head could mean source in Greek literature? (These texts come from various periods of Greek literature, including several near the time of the New Testament. In this respect they are unlike the late metaphorical examples that I mentioned above.)
No, they do not show that at all. These simply refer to the physical head of persons and describe functions that can be observed. These texts do not use kephale metaphorically to mean source. We can see that if we try to substitute the word source in a statement like some of those mentioned in Kroeger's article: might someone say (for example), I see luxuriant hair growing from your source today ? Or might someone say, Your source is giving off abundant nasal secretions this morning ? Certainly those statements would be nonsense, and they show that source was not a suitable meaning or synonym for head in any of those statements.
An Important Unanswered Question
After all the research on this word by myself as well as by Cervin, Payne, Bilezikian, Kroeger, and others, there is still an unanswered question:
Where is even one clear example of kephale used of a person to mean source in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament? Is there even one example that is unambiguous?
If there is still not one clear example before or during the time of the New Testament, then how can many writers go on saying that this is a common meaning at the time of the New Testament? Or even a possible one? Perhaps such examples will be forthcoming, but until they are it would seem appropriate to use much more caution in the statements that are made about source being a common or recognized meaning for kephale . We still see much reason to doubt that it was a recognized meaning at all.
7. (1987) Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians{79}
This treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:3, and particularly the meaning of kephale in that text, quotes the 1954 article by S. Bedale, and then quotes the recent articles discussed above by the Mickelsens, Payne, and Kroeger. Fee calls Kroeger's paper on the Classical concept of head as source a paper that appears to be decisive (p. 502). In addition, from Payne's article Fee quotes the statement from Orphic Fragments 21a, the two quotations from Philo, and the quotations from Artemidorus.
Fee concludes that kephale in the sense of chief or person of highest rank is rare in Greek literature (p. 502). He says, Paul's understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is 'head' as 'source,' especially 'source of life' (p. 502). He gives as evidence the quotations just noted. Fee also takes issue with my study of kephale for four reasons:
- Of my 49 examples, he says 12 are from the NT, and these are examples that [Grudem] prejudges exegetically to mean authority over.
- Of the other 37 examples, 18 are from the Septuagint, which are exceptions that prove the rule.
- He then says, For most of the remaining 19 there is serious exegetical question as to whether the authors intended a metaphorical sense of 'authority over.'
- He says that I am quite mistaken in my use of Philo, because two passages in Philo show the meaning source.{80}
In response to those four points:
- I am not sure what Fee means when he says that I prejudge exegetically the New Testament passages. In my earlier article I discussed each passage. Fee by contrast offers no discussion in return. Is he implying that since my discussion concluded that kephale means authority over, it is invalid to count these examples? But when Fee provides no exegetical arguments of his own about any other passages than 1 Corinthians 11:3, one wonders if it is not he who has prejudged the meaning of these texts.
- As I explained above, it seems inconsistent to say that 18 examples from the Septuagint are exceptions that prove the rule and then reject the sense authority over, which is established by these 18 examples but accept the sense source where there are zero examples from the Septuagint.
- Fee gives no evidence, no argument, no hint of what these serious exegetical questions are in the other citations. His statement is simply dismissal by assertion, with no argument or supporting evidence.
- Regarding the two examples in Philo that speak of a person becoming the head of the human race and of the head of an animal, the meaning source is certainly not clearly established, as was indicated in the discussion above.{81}
Such analysis in a prominent commentary series is puzzling, to say the least. The survey above has shown that not only Fee, but also Kroeger, the Mickelsens, Payne, and Bilezikian all dismiss the meaning authority over as rare, but say that the meaning source is common. Perhaps we can be forgiven for realizing that all of these six writers have also been vocal proponents of an evangelical feminist position that seeks to deny any unique leadership role for men in marriage or the church and for wondering if their strong commitment to this viewpoint has affected their judgment on the meaning of kephale .
It is of course possible that my own judgment on this issue is distorted as well, but as I review the data once again, it seems strange that they have taken the meaning authority, ruler, which is attested over forty times in ancient literature, including about sixteen times in the Septuagint, and called it rare. On the other hand, these authors have taken the meaning source, for which there are only one possible example in the fifth century B.C. (Orphic Fragments, 21a), two possible (but ambiguous) examples in Philo, no examples in the Septuagint, and no clear examples applied to persons before or during the time of the New Testament, and called it a common, recognizable, ordinary meaning. What kind of logic is this? Forty examples make a meaning rare but zero unambiguous examples makes the meaning common ? The meaning authority over, which is in all New Testament Greek lexicons, is unlikely and rare and not part of the ordinary range of meanings for the Greek word, but the meaning source, which is in no lexicon for the New Testament period and is reflected in none of the early Fathers, who took it to mean authority, is called almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped (Fee, First Corinthians, p. 502). I confess that I find it hard to follow this line of reasoning. It seems to me that we have yet to see convincing evidence that kephale ever did mean source at the time of the New Testament.
8. (1989) Joseph Fitzmyer, Another Look at Kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3{82}
In this study Fitzmyer, independently of my earlier study, finds a number of examples of kephale meaning authority or supremacy over someone else in the Septuagint as well as in Jewish and Christian writings outside the New Testament. He concludes:
The upshot of this discussion is that a Hellenistic Jewish writer such as Paul of Tarsus could well have intended that kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3 be understood as head in the sense of authority or supremacy over someone else. . . . 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. (pp. 510-511)
I certainly concur with Fitzmyer at this point.
9. (1989) Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation{83}
Here Cotterell and Turner express substantial agreement with my earlier study.{84} With regard to the suggestion of some that kephale can mean source, they note the absence of any examples of kephale that cannot be explained by other established meanings and have to be explained by the meaning source. They ask:
And where have we evidence of this? Where do we find instances of such statements as cows are the kephale of milk ; Egypt is the kephale of papyrus , etc.? Only such a range of evidence could confirm that kephale had the lexical sense source or origin, generally understood rather than being specifically collocated with nouns referring to linear entities that have two ends. And we do not appear to have this kind of evidence. (p. 143)
They conclude, We are not aware of any instance of 'head' unambiguously used with the sense 'source' before the third century A.D. . . . As far as we can tell, 'source' or 'origin' was not a conventional sense of the word kephale in Paul's time (pp. 144-145).
10. Recent Lexicons by Bauer (1988) and Louw-Nida (1988)
Since my previous article, two more New Testament lexicons have been published. The sixth edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch, on pages 874-875, lists for kephale no such meaning as source but does give the meaning Oberhaupt ( chief, leader ) (p. 874-875). And the new Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, edited by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene E. Nida, 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.
IV. Conclusion
The meaning ruler, authority over is still found quite clearly in forty-one ancient texts from both Biblical and extra-Biblical literature, and is possible in two or more other texts. In addition, there are six texts where kephale refers to the literal head of a peron's body and is said to be the part that rules or governs the rest of the body, and there are two texts which are similes where a ruler or leader is said to be like a head. But four of the examples I previously adduced were shown to be illegitimate by subsequent studies, and those should no longer be counted as valid examples. In addition, all the lexicons that specialize in the New Testament period, including two very recent ones, list the meaning ruler, authority over for kephale -it appears to be a well-established and valid meaning during the New Testament period.
On the other hand, the evidence for the meaning source is far weaker, and it is fair to say that the meaning has not yet been established. There are some texts which indicate that the physical head was thought of as the source of energy or life for the body, and therefore the possibility exists that the word kephale might have come to be used as a metaphor for source or source of life. There are two texts in Philo and one in the Orphic Fragments where such a meaning is possible, but it is not certain, and the meaning leader, ruler would fit these texts as well. There are still no unambiguous examples before or during the time of the New Testament in which kephale has the metaphorical sense source, and no lexicon specializing in the New Testament period lists such a meaning, nor does the Liddell and Scott lexicon list such a meaning as applied to persons or as applied to things that are not also the end point of something else. In fact, we may well ask those who advocate the meaning source an important question: Where is even one clear example of kephale used of a person to mean source in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament? Is there even one example that is unambiguous?
Moreover, even if the meaning source or (as Cervin and Liefeld propose) prominent part were adopted for some examples of the word kephale , we would still have no examples of source or prominent part without the additional nuance of authority or rule. Even in the texts where source or prominent part is alleged as the correct meaning, the person who is called head is always a person in leadership or authority. Therefore there is no linguistic basis for proposing that the New Testament texts which speak of Christ as the head of the church or the husband as the head of the wife can rightly be read apart from the attribution of authority to the one designated as head.
Endnotes to Appendix One Part C
{73}See above the quotations from Plato, Philo, and Plutarch [quotations (3), (18), (19), (20), (28), and (29)], pp. 440-442.
{74}Bilezikian's objection that the Greek phrase hyper panta, over all things, cannot mean authority over all things because hyper means above, not over (p. 244) carries little force: Whether Christ is head over all things or above all things, He still has authority over all. Moreover, in the same sentence Paul says that God has put all things under his feet (Ephesians 1:22). Paul's use of hyper here to say that Christ is over all things probably picks up on his use of the related preposition hyperano , far above, in verse 21, where Christ is said to be far above all rule and authority and power and dominion. It is futile for Bilezikian to try to empty Ephesians 1:22 of the concept of Christ's universal authority.
{75}Appendix 3 in Hull, Equal to Serve, pp. 267-283.
{76}See above, p. 454.
{77}Mickelsen and Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the Bible, p. 100.
{78}See BAGD, p. 112; G. W. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 235-236; Liddell-Scott, p. 252, for arche meaning ruler, leader, authority. For the texts which Kroeger quotes from Chrysostom and Athanasius, the translations given in Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (28 vols. in two series [1886-1900]; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952ff.), are not source (as Kroeger translates) but first principle (Chrysotom, Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians 11, NPNF, first series, 12:151, col. 2) and beginning (Athanasius, De Synodis 27:26, NPNF, second series, 4:465, col 2).
{79}New International Commentary on the New Testament series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 501-505 (commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:3).
{80}These four objections are on pp. 502-503, n. 42
{81}See above.
{82}NTS 35 (1989), pp. 503-511. Fitzmyer is primarily responding to claims by R. Scroggs and J. Murphy-O'Connor that kephale means source in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
{83}(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), pp. 141-145.
{84}See above, p. 535, n. 12, for their comment on Herodotus 4.91.
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 © 1995-2010 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002