Head "OF" or head "OVER" .....

[OopsMartin]

I am reposting my last post on another forum where it is way off topic. Let's stick to this topic in this thread......

There are those who believe Christian marriage is one of male dominance, the husband being the authority of wife and children in a rank and file arrangement. In such a picture those under are at the mercy of the temerament and character of the authority.

There are those who believe Christian marriage to be a picture of the unity spoken of in Genesis where the first male when presented with the first woman, proclaimed with enthusiasm "this is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh". And then it was said that man should leave parents and cleave to his woman. Thus two shall become as if one.

Here I would like to discuss the differences of the concepts of being "of" one another versus being "over" and "under" one another in marriage.

Everyone keeps arguing that kephale means "source" or "origin." This commits the error of "semantic obsolescence." In Classical Greek, even in Classical Greek lexicons (such as LSJ), kephale DOES mean "source." However, the New Testament was composed quite a few centuries after the Classical period, and was written in Koine Greek, not Classical Greek. By the time the Bible was written in Koine Greek, kephale had changed from "source" to "authority."

Thus, any argument saying that kephale means "origin" is based upon an earlier meaning of the word and not the meaning of the word at that time.

When I have time I will look up some material to refute this statement. In the meantime

[apothanein kerdos]

When I have time I will look up some material to refute this statement.

Explain to me why ANYONE should even consider debating with you. You're intellectually dishonest. You just stated here that you're going to find evidence to counter it instead of actually looking at the merits of it.

I'll save you the time; you won't find evidence against it.

When kephale is used in a metaphor to mean authority, the metaphor is head and tail.

No it's not, give me one instance where this occurs in scripture.

Like I said in another post - people on the egalitarian side hurt themselves when they plagiarize, lie, and deceive people.

[Neopatriarch]

No it's not, give me one instance where this occurs in scripture.

I think OopsMartin was thinking of the Septuagint . . .

From the other thread I wrote:

We have debated this word kaphale numerous times, and it does not mean source/origin. According to the Greek dictionary, it means the head, literal or figurative.

Maybe I can take it a little further. I know it's belaboring the point, but . . .

In his book Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth (I gave the link for the book earlier), Wayne Grudem lists several examples from the LXX where the translators chose to translate the Hebrew word

[Neopatriarch]

When kephale is used in a metaphor to mean authority, the metaphor is head and tail. The head is the leader and the tail is the follower. Paul did not use that analogy. Fact is he used a new metaphor; that of

[LynD]

To me, of or over makes no difference as I do believe the husband should be the head of the home. My issues are raised when those who are shouting 'feminism is of the devil' may just be using chauvenism in the same manner. I say that because most of the time, a woman goes to thier pastor, who most of the time is a man, and when she tells them there are problems, the advice is 'be more loving, more submissive, etc.' Its like the men get excused from thier behavior while the women get the blame. So maybe, just maybe, if we started teaching the men how to be the the head 'of' or 'over' those words wouldn't make much difference if the men started "Loving thier wives as Christ loved the church". That love is a sacrificial love, not a domineering love. It is the love of a servant, as Christ himself said He was. The whole church, men and women alike, need to do some serious foot washing.

[apothanein kerdos]

I think OopsMartin was thinking of the Septuagint . . .

Ugh...one of the worst exegetical practices in the world.

[OopsMartin]

Gilbert Bilezikian

Beyond Sex Roles, pgs. 277-78

In order to understand the meaning of "head" as used by the apostle Paul, it is helpful to determine its meaning within the language spoken by Paul. The authors of works such as A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1968), or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 10 volumes) have thoroughly investigated biblical and contemporary extra-biblical writings and reported that the word kephale was used in the secular and religious Greek contemporary to Paul, with the meaning of source, origin, sustainer, and not of ruler. The second century B.C. translation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament into Greek provides a case in point. The Hebrew word for head (ros), commonly used for leader, ruler, or supreme is translated in the Septuagint by a Greek word other than "head" (kephale) over 150 times. It was much later that the word kephale began to be used as "authority" under the pressure of Latin usage, as evidenced in the writings of some post apostolic church fathers. For Paul and his correspondents the use of the word kephale as a synonym for ruler or authority would have been as meaningless as attempting to do the same today with tete in French, or Kopf in German.

[OopsMartin]

Catherine Clark Kroeger

"The Classical Concept of Head as "Source", from the appendix of Gretchen Gabelein Hull's book "Equal to Serve." pgs. 267-268

The concept of head as "source" is well documented in both classical and Christian antiquity and has been long accepted by scholars. Some evangelicals, however, have shown a reluctance to deal with the data

[OopsMartin]

Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen

Women, Authority & the Bible, pgs. 100-103

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

[OopsMartin]

David Scholer

Women, Abuse, and the Bible, pgs. 42-43

What is the result of this two-decades-long debate within evangelical circles over the meaning of kephale, and how does it relate to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Ephesians 5:21-33? It is not likely that any further progress can be made now in the analysis of the Greek word kephale; the evidence is in and has been sifted from various perspectives. It seems clear to me that the evidence shows the metaphorical meaning of kephale can be varied, including "authority over", "preeminence", and "source." It is, however, especially important to note that the Septuagint evidence rather clearly indicates that the Greek kephale was not normally used to translate the Hebrew rosh when the Hebrew term meant a ruler, leader, or someone in authority. This considerably weakens the argument that kephale in Hellenistic Greek means "authority over" or "ruler." In my judgement, Bilezikian and Crain have made this case especially well. Rather, it seems clearly established that kephale can mean "source", as many (such as Kroeger, Fee and others) have shown. Perhaps Fee has given the most succinct statement of the basic evidence.

However, and this is a very important point that so much of the kephale debate seems to ignore or to put aside, the determinative evidence for the meaning of kephale is its use and function in particular contexts. Thus, proving a range of meanings for kephale is important, especially against the undue limits argued by Grudem, but the critical issue is how kephale functions in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Ephesians 5:21-33.

Although 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (especially in the allusions to Genesis 2 in verses 7-9) does reflect to some degree the traditional Jewish understanding of androcentrism, the passage as a whole provides considerable support both for an understanding of kephale as "source" and also for a genuine equality and mutuality between men and women in the church. The christological issue in the words "and God is the head of Christ" (11:3 NRSV) is better served in Pauline theology by the understanding "source" rather than by "authority over". Further, even the Genesis argument (11:7-9) fits very well with understanding kephale as "source."