WHERE IS THIS ALL HEADED? #1
I was sent this link to a collection of articles that claim to be “Exploring the biblical theology of Christian Egalitarianism.” I thought I would respond to a few of the articles listed. Here is my first offering. It refers to this article called, “4 Facts that Show “Head” does not mean “Leader” in 1 Corinthians 11:3.”
Marg starts out letting us know that the English language allows the word head has many metaphorical meanings, one of which could be leader. However, in Greek, both ancient and or in the first century the word for head, kephale, doesn’t normally have this meaning. She proceeds to give us four “pieces of evidence” for why she thinks this. Here they are in summary.
Evidence # 1 “When the Hebrew word for “head” meant “leader” in the Hebrew Bible, it was usually not translated with the Greek word for “head” in the Septuagint.” Referring to Gordon Fee, Marg said that the word head is used 180 times in the Old Testament and of all the times that word is used, it is only translated by ruler in Greek five times, not counting “head-tail” metaphors (of which there are seven instances). Instead of using the Greek word, head, they translators of the Septuagint used the word ruler.
In this section, Marg also introduced the idea that head might also mean source or beginning. She gave Psalm 111:10 as an example of it being translated this way in the Old Testament. This is how she thinks the word in 1 Cor. 11:3 should be translated.
Evidence #2 Lexicons of secular Greek texts don’t give leader as a translation of kephale until the 4th century.
Evidence #3 Several early church fathers didn’t think kephale meant leader in 1 Cor. 11:3.
Evidence #4 Secular Greek authors didn’t use kephale when writing about the relationship between men and women.
She added that kephale can also mean point of origin or covering.
And her conclusion was:
So how are we to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3? Kenneth Bailey interprets it like this:
“The origin of every man is Christ” (i.e. Christ is the agent of God in creation. In 1 Corinthians 8.6 Paul affirms that Jesus Christ is the one “through whom are all things.”)
“The origin of woman is man” (i.e., Genesis 2:21-23). Woman [ishah] is “taken out of man [ish].”
“The origin of Christ is God” (i.e., the Christ is “the Messiah” and the origin of the Messiah is God). In the language of later centuries, “The Son proceeds from the Father.” Christ comes from God….
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 there are several allusions to the Genesis 2 creation account and to the origin of man and woman (1 Cor. 11: 8-9, 11-12). So it plausible that 1 Corinthians 11:3 also alludes to creation and origins.
1 Corinthians 11:3 is a difficult verse to interpret, and it occurs at the beginning of a difficult passage. One thing is vital, however, we must read on to find Paul’s intent for those who are “in the Lord”. 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 reveals Paul’s desire for mutuality and interdependence between men and women, not hierarchy. Also, we mustn’t let the complexities of this passage overshadow the simple fact that both men and women prayed and prophesied aloud in church meetings.
My comments:
Marg did a lot of work to write this paper. I commend her for that. There also isn’t anything in the paper that a person can disagree with. The word, kephale might mean all the things she said it might mean. It also can mean all these things.
At the end of the day, there isn’t anything about the text of 1 Corinthians 11 that tells us which possible meaning kephale actually has. Which is why there is so much room for debate and confusion. The text uses the word, head, at least two different ways right in those few verses. In the third verse, what it means is disputed. It can mean leader, like it does at least 11 times in the Old Testament (according to Gordon Fee), and it can mean source or origin, like Marg thinks it does. Maybe, maybe not. Who’s to say for sure?
I prefer to take it as head with all the possible meanings and let it sort of slide around in my head (hey, there I go using that word) as I proceed through the text. In other words, what would be the harm in thinking of head in 11:3 as if Paul meant, source, origin, chief, leader, brains, or anything else that the word head brings to mind? Just because secular Greek writers didn’t use the word the way we use the word doesn’t mean they didn’t think in concepts that are similar to ours, just using different words. Secular Greek authors weren’t Christians and to use them as sources of authority for what the Bible meant, doesn’t really ring a good bell I my head.
Here’s another thought. Paul was a Jew. He as a Hebrew scholar. He was steeped in the Old Testament. What if his use of the word, kephale, was based on how the word, rosh, is used in Hebrew, not in Greek or the Greek translations of the Hebrew? I did a little checking and found that the word rosh is translated by these English words: head (physical head—Gen. 40:16), top (like a mountaintop—Gen. 28:18), chief (like leader of an army or tribe—Num. 31:25), first (1 Chron. 12:9), beginning (Ex. 12:2), company (Jdg. 7:16), and leader (Num. 14:4). It strikes me that the Septuagint translators who translated rosh by ruler only 11 times, instead of kephale, understood that in certain contexts rosh meant ruler or leader. Just because it was only 11 times doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been or that it wasn’t a normal translation for the Old Testament. It certainly leaves it as a possible option. I think a likely option. In fact, because they did it almost a dozen times, it obviously was an option.
So, I think Paul was using kephale, in writing to the Corinthians as if he were using rosh, with all of its Old Testament meanings. The Corinthians read that first letter and understood, as they read through the letter, to let the meaning slide around between the various possible meanings. At first, verse 3 meant source, leader, origin, etc. Then, in verse 4, it slipped to the literal head and continues through the rest of the chapter.
In conclusion: I think Marg did an excellent job of creating what might have been the case. She might be right. The word might mean what she said it could mean. It certainly could. But at the end of the day, she didn’t really address the real problem for sinful rebellious women. What does the word translated authority in verse 10 mean?
Here’s the point of why I wrote this. I believe Egalitarianism’s ultimate goal is to do away with the roles of a wife submitting to her husband and a husband leading his wife, in that order. If this is the case, then egalitarianism is at odds with the Gospel itself. It is not Biblical, and it is not Christian. Instead, it is antichristian and is to be beat down with a big stick. It might be that the church has not correctly understood kephale in Cor. 11:3 for 2,000 years and that would be fine, but if the actual goal is to blur the distinctions between men and women and to whittle away at scripture such that wives don’t need to submit to their husbands and husbands can’t lead their wives in a godly Christ-honoring way, then this is Satanic to the core.
In Ephesians, Paul said that a wife submitting to her husband with all respect and dignity and a husband loving his wife with every fiber of his being are reflections of Christ and the church. If a wife doesn’t need to submit to her husband, then the picture is skewed and the Gospel is not accurately presented. If a husband is not to love his wife like Christ loved the church, by leading her, initiating with her, presenting her, sacrificing for her based on the wisdom God gives him, what is presented is a lie. If a wife doesn’t need to submit to her husband as the church does to Christ, then the church does not need to submit to Christ and thus Christ is not Lord. And if Christ is not Lord, he didn’t rise from the dead. And if he didn’t rise from the dead, we are still in our sins.
People who are thinking about egalitarianism need to think about the end game. Where is this kind of thinking headed? What will be the outcome? In terms of Heaven and Hell is this really the Gospel presented in the Bible? It is important to acknowledge that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but who Jesus is make a huge difference too. The Mormons worship someone they call Jesus, but he isn’t the Christian Jesus. The egalitarians are offering a different Jesus too. And he isn’t the Christian Jesus either.