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

[Neopatriarch]

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.

(I added the boldface)

I've already given verses from the LXX where kephale means "authority over/ruler" and this is well before any "pressure of Latin usage" to which Bilezikian refers.

Further, you seem to be contradicting yourself since you've already stated that kephale means "leader" in the LXX.

From post 286 in the other thread:

In the two passages quoted the metaphor is between the head and the tail. This is indeed a metaphor of leader and follower.

-Neopatriarch

[ColleenLovesMischief]

The chain of command seems simple enough. God first whom the husband is subject to as his head, the wife is subject to the husband (and God of course), and the children subject to mom,dad, and God..... Not too hard. None is above the other, but we are called to submit to those who have authority over is. For a woman to disobey her husband is to dishonor God as well. And so on down the line.

[apothanein kerdos]

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

[MorningGlory]

The chain of command seems simple enough. God first whom the husband is subject to as his head, the wife is subject to the husband (and God of course), and the children subject to mom,dad, and God..... Not too hard. None is above the other, but we are called to submit to those who have authority over is. For a woman to disobey her husband is to dishonor God as well. And so on down the line.

The part about women disobeying their husbands doesn't always hold true. I believe God wouldn't want me to obey my ex-husband as he is a career criminal and a drug addict. Anyway, grown women aren't children and, if they help support the family and do half of the work, they should not be subject to a man's will. Men are not, in any way, automatically suited to the job of head of the family.

[firehill]

The chain of command seems simple enough. God first whom the husband is subject to as his head, the wife is subject to the husband (and God of course), and the children subject to mom,dad, and God..... Not too hard. None is above the other, but we are called to submit to those who have authority over is. For a woman to disobey her husband is to dishonor God as well. And so on down the line.

Men are not, in any way, automatically suited to the job of head of the family.

You know you bring up a very basic point. It's not like God built them to better lead in the home then women. Good for you!

[OopsMartin]

Kevin Giles fr. "The Trinity & Subordinationism" pg. 169

"Exegesis or Eisegesis?

In "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" and "Women in the Church, " there is an ongoing critique of the egalitarian-complementarian position. One much-reiterated charge is that the evangelicals who have taken this approach have introduced "novel" interpretations of the Scriptures

[apothanein kerdos]

Kevin Giles fr. "The Trinity & Subordinationism" pg. 169

"Exegesis or Eisegesis?

In "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" and "Women in the Church, " there is an ongoing critique of the egalitarian-complementarian position. One much-reiterated charge is that the evangelicals who have taken this approach have introduced "novel" interpretations of the Scriptures

[OopsMartin]

A.K. writes:

[apothanein kerdos]

A.K. writes:

[OopsMartin]

Kevin Giles fr. "The Trinity & Subordinationism" pg. 169

"Exegesis or Eisegesis?

In "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" and "Women in the Church, " there is an ongoing critique of the egalitarian-complementarian position. One much-reiterated charge is that the evangelicals who have taken this approach have introduced "novel" interpretations of the Scriptures