What Does “Head” (Kephalē) Mean in Paul’s Letters? Part 4: Early Church Fathers

26 comments on “What Does “Head” (Kephalē) Mean in Paul’s Letters? Part 4: Early Church Fathers”

1. 

   John Lynn on November 17th, 2023 - 1:34pm

   It could be an issue with my browser, but the underlining in some of your quotes isn’t showing up (like the one of Eusebius, Eccl Theol 1 11 2-3 or Photius, where you mention the underlined portion which the scholar failed to address).

   On a more substantial note, is it common for scholarly types to use incomplete/selective quotations like this? I tend to assume that by the time their work has made it to a journal or book someone has checked it, so I’ve taken them at face value, but I’m wondering if that’s a bit naïve on my part.

   Reply
   • 

     preston on November 18th, 2023 - 4:40am

     Hey John, yeah, in the editing process, the underlines got deleting and I totally forgot to fix it! I’ll see about updating it. Thanks for letting me know!

     Unfortunately, it’s fairly common for scholars to quote the portions of things they want to prove their argument. I’m not saying it’s always intentional, and I’m sure I’m not immune to doing it either. It’s just that you get caught up in your own argument and passion for your conclusion that you end up reading the material through the lens of your conclusion.

     Always gotta check the sources for yourself!

     Reply
2. 

   PeterC on November 18th, 2023 - 5:43pm

   TBH there doesnt seem to be much of a conclusion! Perhaps Paul is reflecting his time and culture rather than God’s actual view, but then that would seem to go against Scripture’s purpose (though I sometimes wonder if Paul would have been surprised to know his letters to churches became part of ‘Scripture’, but that’s another kettle of fish!). And Paul seems to argue from Scripture, ie the story of creation in Genesis, to explain his understanding, even though many today including myself dont take that story literally, unlike I suspect Paul. But I wondered how you live your own life, given youre married?

   Reply
3. 

   Philip B. Payne on November 18th, 2023 - 7:10pm

   Preston writes, “Payne doesn’t seem to appreciate the various possible meanings of archē; he simply translates it as ‘source’.” I assure you that I, Philip B. Payne, do appreciate the various possible meaning of archē. In each passage I translated, I considered each of these possible translations and chose the translation that best fits the content and context of that passage.

   For example, Preston writes, “I do think ‘beginning’ is probably the better translation of archē here.” Why would you think this? Cyril of Alexandria’s de recta fide ad Arcadiam et Marinam 1.1.5.5(2).63 makes three statements, each of which only makes sense if “head” means “source”:
   1) Christ is the head of every man, for man was made through him and he was brought to birth, the Son not creating him in a servile way, but more divinely, as in the nature for workman.
   Unless “beginning” is used to mean “source” or “origin,” Christ in creating mankind is not the “beginning” of man. That would indicate that the eternal Son is the beginning of man and that man is an extension of the eternal Son (see Webster’s Dictionary). Christ, however, is the source of man since God created all things through Christ (1 Cor 8:6).
   2) “But the head of woman is the man,” for she was taken out of his flesh, and she has him even as (her) beginning/source (archē).
   The first man was not the beginning of woman. “Beginning” would indicate that the first man was the beginning of woman, who was in some sense a continuation of that man or an extension of that man. Man was, however, the “source” from whom woman was taken.
   3) And similarly, “the head of Christ is God,” for he is from him according to nature for the Word was begotten out of God the Father.
   “Is from him” and “was begotten out of” both express “source,” not “beginning.” Interpreting archē to mean “beginning” is contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine of the three distinct persons of the Godhead because in this context, archē would then would express that Christ is a continuation or extension of God rather than a distinct person.

   Although the context of 1 Cor 11:3 shows that Cyril of Alexandria was correct to explain “head” to mean archē in the sense of “source” in all three of its occurrences in 1 Cor 11:3, it is more probable that Paul intended “the source of Christ is ho theos” to refer to Christ in his incarnation coming from the Godhead. Similarly, in “All this is from ho theos” in 1 Cor 11:12, “all this,” namely, “woman came from man” and “man comes through woman,” ho theos must not exclude Christ. Furthermore, ho theos usually refers broadly to the Godhead in the second half of 1 Corinthians.

   Reply
   • 

     preston on November 20th, 2023 - 4:40pm

     Thank you, Philip, for taking the time to respond, and, most of all, for all of your studious work in this area. I’ll try to respond to as many of your critiques as I can.

     1. The meaning of archē. I’m sorry I said “Payne doesn’t seem to appreciate the various possible meanings of archē” as if you were unaware, as a scholar, of the different meanings. What I was trying to say is that in your interpretation of each passage where archē occurs, you don’t let the reader know, for instance, that archē “could mean ruler, beginning, source, along with other things, but for such and such a reason, I do believe ‘source’ is the better meaning here.” Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in your discussion of the passages at hand, you simply translate archē as “source” with little-to-know admission that it COULD mean “ruler” or “beginning” (even if you argue against those meanings here). You do mention in passing (in your “forthcoming” piece that you graciously sent to me) that PGL 235 lists “First Cause, Creator” under “Beginning, source, principle” as a possible meaning of archē but don’t mention other possible meanings of archē (such as “beginning” or “ruler). In short, while I am certain that a scholar of your stature is very much aware of the polysemy of archē, and I am very sorry that implied otherwise in my statement, I wish you would openly clarify this in your discussion of the word as it relates to kephalē.

     2. You said: “For example, Preston writes, ‘I do think ‘beginning’ is probably the better translation of archē here’.” To be clear, my fuller statement reads:

     “This is another passage that Payne and others take to refer clearly to “source.” and I think this is a better interpretation than “authority over, leader.” More precisely, I think something like “beginning” is probably a more accurate meaning, though “source” and “beginning” seem to overlap in meaning.”

     I’m not at all landing down hard on “beginning” AND NOT “source” for kephalē here (in Cyril of Alexandria), and I do think there’s a overlap in meaning with the English terms “beginning” and “source.” You very well could be right. As I’ve gone back and read this passage, kephalē is probably better understood as “source” here, though I’m still not sure it therefore DOES NOT include some sense of “beginning” (again, since the English terms “source” and “beginning” seem to overlap in meaning). We both agree that kephalē does not mean “leader” here, and that, I think, is the main point.

     Reply
     • 

       Philip B. Payne on November 21st, 2023 - 4:55am

       Thanks, Preston, for your gracious response and clarification that “kephalē is probably better understood as ‘source’ here” (Cyril of Alexandria’s de recta fide ad Arcadiam et Marinam 1.1.5.5(2).63).

       You add, “though I’m still not sure it therefore DOES NOT include some sense of ‘beginning’ (again, since the English terms ‘source’ and ‘beginning’ seem to overlap in meaning). We both agree that kephalē does not mean ‘leader’ here, and that, I think, is the main point.”

       I did not suggest “beginning” as a possible meaning of three uses of “head” in Cyril of Alexandria’s de recta fide ad Arcadiam et Marinam 1.1.5.5(2).63 because “beginning” is not a meaning that fits any of Cyril’s three uses, let alone consistently fits all three of them. Webster’s New World Dictionary (3rd College Edition; New York: Prentice Hall, 1989), 125 lists four meanings for “beginning”:
       1) “a starting or commencing” Christ is not the starting or commencing of every man, nor is man the starting or commencing of women, nor is the Godhead the starting or commencing of Christ.
       2) “the time or place of starting; birth; origin; source [English democracy has its beginning in the Magna Carta]” Christ is not the time or place of starting every man, nor is man the time or place of starting woman, nor is the Godhead the time or place of starting Christ.
       3) “the first part [the beginning of a book]” Christ is not the first part of every man, nor is man the first part of women, nor is the Godhead the first part of Christ.
       4) “[usually pl.] an early stage or example [the beginnings of scientific agriculture]” Christ is not an early stage or example every man, nor is man an early stage or example of women, nor is the Godhead an early stage or example Christ.
       It is, however, natural and appropriate in English to speak of Christ as the source of every man, of man as the source of woman, and of the Godhead as the source Christ came from. This is why the many church fathers I cite interpret “head” in each of its occurrences in 1 Cor 11:3 to mean “source.”

       The only case in which “beginning” makes sense of the three uses in 1 Cor 11:3 is if it is interpreted to mean “source.” But in that case, it is more clear in English to explain that it means “source,” because the meaning of source is clear in all three instances. To interpret “head” as “beginning” invites confusion, since people hearing that interpretation wonder in what sense “Christ is the beginning of every man, man is the beginning of woman, and the Godhead is the beginning of Christ.”

       Preston, in apparent support of “kephalē is probably better understood as ‘source’ here, though I’m still not sure it therefore DOES NOT include some sense of “beginning,” refers to “the polysemy of archē.” Preston’s introduction states, “kephalē could mean ‘source’ and not ‘authority’ or ‘prominence,’ or it could mean ‘source’ and also ‘authority,’ or it could mean ‘source, prominence,’ and ‘authority.’ Words can be polysemous—capable of more than one meaning at the same time.” Polysemy, however, normally refers to the range of meanings a word can have in different contexts, it does not imply that we should look for multiple meanings in specific contexts. Although there are rare cases of double-entendre, one should appeal to this only where there is clear evidence in the context that the author intended this specific word to convey two different meanings. Typical Greek readers or hearers, having understood a meaning that makes sense to them, would not also look for a second or third meaning. Consequently, having established clear evidence from the context that the author explained “head” to mean “source,” it obfuscates the author’s meaning, rather than clarifying it, to try to interpret “head” to mean more than “source,” whether “beginning” or “authority,” or anything else. I encourage “lean” over “luxurious” interpretations.

       Each of my books and articles on the meaning of “head” in Paul’s writings do weigh the appropriateness of different suggested meanings of “head.” But before asserting that “authority” was a standard metaphorical meaning for kephalē in secular Greek in Paul’s day, one should at least consider the meanings secular Greek dictionaries give for kephalē. I have not found a single reference to a secular Greek dictionary or lexicon in any of Preston’s first four posts. In fact, neither the most exhaustive Greek dictionary, LSJ, nor any of its supplements, include “ruler,” “authority,” or anything related to them as a meaning for kephalē in secular Greek.

       LSJ lists forty-nine figurative meanings for κεφαλή, including various examples meaning “source.” It does not, however, list “leader,” “authority” or anything similar as a meaning for κεφαλή. None of its supplements, by Barber, Renehan, and Glare, nor the lexicons by Moulton and Milligan, F. Preisigke, P. Chantraine, or S. C. Woodhouse, nor the twelve additional Greek lexicons cited by Richard Cervin give even one example near Paul’s time where κεφαλή means leader or authority.

       Heinrich Schlier’s TDNT 3:674 article states, “[I]n secular usage κεφαλή is not employed for the head of a society. This is first found in the sphere of the Gk. OT.” Apart from New Testament lexicons, the vast majority of Greek lexicons list no meaning related to “leader.” The only two citations from secular Greek meaning “leader” I have found in secular Greek lexicons are citations from the fourth century C.E.

       Many lexicons cite κεφαλή meaning “source.” The ninth-century lexicographer Photius explained κεφαλή in 1 Cor 11:3 as “procreator” [γεννήτωρ] and “progenitor” [προβολεύς] (Staab, Pauluskommentare 567.1–2 regarding 1 Cor 11:3). The twelfth-century Johannes Zonaras Lexicon, the sixteenth-century lexicons by Petrina, Estienne, and Budé, Tusanus, Gesner and Junius, and later lexicons by Passow, Pape, Schenkl, Woodhouse, Bailly, Bölting, Rost, Feyerabend, Montanari, and Banks list the meaning “source” for κεφαλή. Colin Brown, “Head,” NIDNTT 2:160 states that in 1 Cor 11:3 “head is probably to be understood not as ‘chief’ or ‘ruler’ but as ‘source’ or ‘origin.’” Most of these lexicons cover the New Testament period.

       Nevertheless, Wayne Grudem, “Appendix 4: The Meaning of κεφαλή (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” in Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 552–99, at 590; and similarly at 206 asserts, “Liddell-Scott was the only Greek-English lexicon that even mentioned the possibility of the meaning ‘source’ for κεφαλή.” “All … lexicons … for ancient Greek, or their editors … give kephalē the meaning ‘person in authority over’.” As I have just documented, neither statement is true.

       Reply
4. 

   Philip B. Payne on November 18th, 2023 - 7:27pm

   Preston writes, “But did Theodore believe that ‘source’ excluded all notions of ‘authority’?” Preston’s quote from Theodore does not mention “source” or “head” or Adam or Eve. It is, therefore, not a solid basis for interpreting what Theodore thought 1 Cor 11:3 teaches. It does express Theodore’s belief in woman’s inferiority, but not that he, much less Paul, understood 1 Cor 11:3 to teach this.

   I have never taught that “source” excludes all notions of authority. When source is used to identify active creative source, as in “Christ is the source of every man,” authority can be naturally understood. But when it refers to the place from which someone comes, whether woman coming from man or Christ coming from the Godhead, no hierarchy of authority is implied.

   Regarding Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:3, Preston writes, “but Payne doesn’t mention Theodore’s later understanding of what source means according to his comments on 1 Corinthians 11:3.” As noted above, the additional quote Preston cites from Theodore does not address “what source means.” Based on other statements by Paul regarding all believers, it should be clear that Paul never taught that woman is only “faintly” created in God’s image. Therefore, one should not use Theodore of Mopsuestia’s comment that “image,” … applied faintly” to woman to interpret what Paul intended in 1 Cor 11:3.

   Regarding two quotes from Athanasius, Preston writes, “Payne … assumes that archē means “source” here.” It is not that I assume this, but that the content of both statements is explicitly about generation. “The Father who generated him as his source (archē)” specifies the sense of “source.” This is not just my opinion. The Patristic Greek Lexicon 235 lists archē in the first Athanasius passage under ‘First Cause, Creator’, a subheading under “beginning, source, principle.” This subheading also quotes both Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus (died 386), catech. 11.14, “Neither is the source [archē] two. But the Father is head-as-source [kephalē] of the Son, the source [archē ] is one,” and Eusebius (ca. 265–339), Eccl. Theol. 1.11.2–3. In this Eusebius passage, Grudem translates archēgos “leader,” but the Patristic Greek Lexicon 236 list four times as many examples of this word meaning “first cause, author.” Eusebius explains that Christ is “the originator (archēgos) and head (kephalē) of the church, and the Father of him” and confirms that he is using kephalē to mean creative source by stating that the Father is the “cause [aitios]” of Christ.

   Regarding Photius, Preston writes, “Payne cites this passage as proof that ‘many church fathers’ interpreted kephalē to mean ‘source’ and not ‘leader, authority over’.” Neither my The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, which Preston cites, nor the excerpt of my forthcoming book that I provided to Preston ever speaks of “proof.”

   Reply
   • 

     preston on November 20th, 2023 - 5:06pm

     1. I think you misunderstood (or misrepresented) what I was saying. I stated clearly that Theodore’s interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 “seems to be another clear instance where kephalē means ‘source’.” But when Theodore explores 1 Cor 11:7-8, which talks about the significance of Adam being the source of Eve, Theodore clearly takes this to mean “authority.” It’s not just that Theodore believes kephalē and he also elsewhere believes that women are inferior; rather, the very notion of “source” is taken to imply “authority” in the Theodore’s interaction with 1 Cor 11:7-8–a passage that you yourself believe (correct me if I’m wrong) is connected to 1 Cor 11:3 and the meaning of kephalē. In short, Theodore does not explicitly say that kephalē means “authority; he believes it means “source” but later connects the concept of “source” with grounds for “authority.”

     Furthermore, you misinterpret what I was concluding about Theodore’s statement to mean, as if I think Theodore’s view contributes to MY understanding of what PAUL meant. You write: “Based on other statements by Paul regarding all believers, it should be clear that Paul never taught that woman is only “faintly” created in God’s image. Therefore, one should not use Theodore of Mopsuestia’s comment that “image,” … applied faintly” to woman to interpret what Paul intended in 1 Cor 11:3.”

     I’m not at all using Theodore to “interpret what Paul intended in 1 Cor 11:3.” I’m simply trying to understand what Theodore meant. He could have been a terrible interpreter of Paul for all I care. At this point, I’m simply trying to understand how ancient writers understood kephale.

     2. You write: “I have never taught that “source” excludes all notions of authority. When source is used to identify active creative source, as in “Christ is the source of every man,” authority can be naturally understood. But when it refers to the place from which someone comes, whether woman coming from man or Christ coming from the Godhead, no hierarchy of authority is implied.”

     I hear you saying that when Christ is the “source” of humankind, then authority is implied, but when man is the source of woman, then no “authority” is implied? I will more accurately make this distinction. But to be clear, I am trying to understand how ancient writers understood kephalē AS IT RELATES TO their understanding of a man’s/husband’s relationship to his wife. And from what I can tell, at least some writers understood “source” to also convey notions of authority. But I know we agree to disagree here.

     3. You write: “Regarding two quotes from Athanasius, Preston writes, “Payne … assumes that archē means “source” here.” It is not that I assume this, but that the content of both statements is explicitly about generation.”

     I said “assume” since you didn’t say that archē could mean other things like “leader” or “beginning” but for such an such reason I believe the best translation is “source” here. I personally think there is more ambiguity here (in the two passages in Athanasius) regarding archē. But again, we can agree to disagree here.

     In your comment, though, you didn’t mention that Athanasius is quoting from an Arian creed. Do you believe this to be true? And if so, do you still think this passage is a good piece of evidence for what Athanasius believed about kephalē? That was really the main point of my comment about these two passages.

     You also didn’t respond to my point that elsewhere Athanasius refers to “the bishops of illustrious cities” as “the heads (kephaloi) of great churches,” which seems to point clearly to their authoritative leadership over those churches. Do you agree with this interpretation of kephalē? Or do you think that the bishops are the “sources” of great churches?

     4. Regarding Photius, you said: “Regarding Photius, Preston writes, “Payne cites this passage as proof that ‘many church fathers’ interpreted kephalē to mean ‘source’ and not ‘leader, authority over’.” Neither my The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, which Preston cites, nor the excerpt of my forthcoming book that I provided to Preston ever speaks of “proof.””

     Here’s what you wrote in “The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood:

     “Many church fathers, including Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cosmos Indicopleustes, Eusebius, and Photius explain that each instance of ‘head’ in 1 Cor. 11:3 means ‘source’.”

     I’m not where I’m off in my reading of what you said. Is it simply that you didn’t use the actual word “proof?” Certainly, that’s what you’re getting at, right? Listing these church fathers as proof that kephale means “source” in their writings? Would you rather I use the word “evidence?” (It doesn’t really matter to me.) You clearly cite Photius as evidence/proof/an example/etc THAT “Many church fathers…explain that each instance of ‘head’ in 1 Cor. 11:3 means ‘source’.”

     My main points (that you didn’t respond to in your comment) is that Photius is writing in the 9th century AD and it’s misleading to include him in a list of “church fathers.” (Unless, of course, it’s common to include 9th century Christians writers as “church fathers;” I don’t believe this is typical, but please correct me if I’m wrong.) And you also didn’t respond to the fact that the rest of the passage in Photius that you left off of your quote suggests that kephalē includes some sense of “authority.”

     5. You write: “Eusebius (ca. 265–339), Eccl. Theol. 1.11.2–3. In this Eusebius passage, Grudem translates archēgos “leader,” but the Patristic Greek Lexicon 236 list four times as many examples of this word meaning “first cause, author.””

     This is very helpful. I don’t have access to this resource (nor to Peter Lampe’s lexicon of the church fathers), so when I get access to this I will do more research on the meaning of archēgos. Of course, even if it’s used to mean “first cause, author” in many places does not in itself prove that it means that in the passage in question, nor does “first cause, author” necessarily exclude notions of authority. But I’m more than happy to do more research on this word.

     Also, you didn’t address the fact that in your forthcoming article, you left off the part of the quote from Eusebius, where he says: “…who sends him, who appoint him, who commands, who teaches, who commits all things to him, who glorifies him, who exalts (him), who declares him king of all, who has committed all judgment to him.”

     Reply
     • 

       Philip B. Payne on November 26th, 2023 - 3:11am

       Philip B. Payne’s response to Preston’s second response, point 1:

       Preston responds: “I think you misunderstood (or misrepresented) what I was saying … the very notion of “source” is taken to imply “authority” in the Theodore’s interaction with 1 Cor 11:7-8–a passage that you yourself believe (correct me if I’m wrong) is connected to 1 Cor 11:3 and the meaning of kephalē. In short, Theodore does not explicitly say that kephalē means ‘authority’; he believes it means ‘source’ but later connects the concept of ‘source’ with grounds for ‘authority’.”

       Phil Payne’s comment: What Preston’s original essay cites from Theodore of Mopsuestia is entirely about 1 Cor 11:7. None of Preston’s citation from Theodore mentions 11:8. It is only 11:8 that refers to “source” (“Man is not from woman, but woman from man”). 11:8 does confirm the meaning “source” in 11:3. The Theodore comment Preston cites regards 11:7 only: “He calls the woman ‘glory’ but surely not ‘image,’ because it applied faintly, since ‘glory’ looks at obedience but ‘image’ looks at rulership (eis to archikon).” This statement by Theodore does not connect the concept of “source” with “authority.” If Theodore later states something that does address “what source means,” then Preston should cite it. But since Preston did not cite such a statement, he is not justified in asserting based on what he cites that Theodore “later connects the concept of ‘source’ with grounds for ‘authority’” or that this statement “teases out his [Theodore’s] theological understanding of what ‘source’ means” or “you misunderstood (or misrepresented) what I was saying” or that Theodore provides grounds for believing that “this text might be a case where kephalē means ‘source’ and ‘authority’.”

       I did think that Preston was giving a summary statement of what he thinks 11:3 means when I read in his original essay: “but Payne doesn’t mention Theodore’s later understanding of what source means according to his comments on 1 Corinthians 11:3. In short, I think this text might be a case where kephalē means “source” and “authority.”

       Thank you for your clarification: “I’m not at all using Theodore to “interpret what Paul intended in 1 Cor 11:3.” I’m simply trying to understand what Theodore meant. He could have been a terrible interpreter of Paul for all I care. At this point, I’m simply trying to understand how ancient writers understood kephale.”

       Please note that I (Phil Payne) do not see any basis in what Preston quoted from Theodore regarding 1 Cor 11:7 to think that Theodore understood kephalē to mean “authority” or “source” and “authority” or that 11:3 “might be a case where kephalē means ‘source’ and ‘authority.’

       Phil Payne’s response to Preston’s second response, point 2:

       Preston asks me, “I hear you saying that when Christ is the ‘source’ of humankind, then authority is implied, but when man is the source of woman, then no ‘authority’ is implied?’
       Phil’s response: Yes, I do believe that when “head” means “source” in an active sense of the creator of something, that this typically does imply the authority of the creator. But when God created woman from the man’s rib, the man was totally passive. Only God as the active source/creator has authority over what God created. I see nothing in what you have cited from Theodore indicating that Theodore understood “the man is the head/source of woman” to conveying man’s authority over woman. Theodore explicitly explains “head” as “source.” So unless he explains that “head” also means “authority,” you should not attribute that to Theodore.

       Preston responds, “I am trying to understand how ancient writers understood kephalē AS IT RELATES TO their understanding of a man’s/husband’s relationship to his wife.”

       Phil Payne responds. 1 Cor 11:3 does not mention “husband” or “wife.” Verse 3’s first reference to “man” (“the head of every man is Christ”) clearly means “man,” not “husband.” Consequently, the reader naturally assumes that the following “the man is head of woman” also refers to “man,” not husband. If Paul had intended a change in the meaning of “man,” he could have specified “his wife.” Paul did not do this. As all Paul’s other references to “woman” meaning “wife” show, there would have to be at least an article, “the woman” for a reader to have any clue that the same word “man” means something different in the second clause, namely “the husband is head of his wife.” Then immediately following verse 3, verse 4 again refers to “man” using the same word, “Every man who prays or prophesies ‘having down from the head’ (which most naturally refers to long hair, as in verse 14) disgraces his head.” There is wide scholarly consensus that verse 4 also refers to “man.” Furthermore, Paul twice later refers to the first woman being taken from the first man: “woman is from man” in verse 8 and “the woman is from the man” in verse 12.

       Phil Payne’s response to Preston’s second response, point 3:

       Preston writes, “In your comment, though, you didn’t mention that Athanasius is quoting from an Arian creed. Do you believe this to be true? And if so, do you still think this passage is a good piece of evidence for what Athanasius believed about kephalē?”

       Phil Payne’s response: I am surprised Preston wrote as though I was unaware that this is a citation from an Arian document because in the document I sent to Preston regarding what Athanasius wrote, I specifically stated, “Athanasius (ca. 296–373) quotes the Arian Symb. Sirm. 1 anath. 26 (PG 26:740B), “For the head (κεφαλή), which is the source (ἀρχή) of all things, is the Son; and the head (κεφαλή), which is the source (ἀρχή) of Christ is God; for thus we reverently lift up all things to the One without beginning, the source (ἀρχή) of everything that exists through the Son [1 Cor 8:6].”

       Phil Payne: Yes, this passage is evidence for what Athanasius believed about kephalē. There is no reason to think that Athanasius did not believe that Christ is the source of all things, especially since the end of this passage from him quotes 1 Cor 8:6, which explicitly affirms that all things were created through Christ. Furthermore, the passage quotes statements about kephalē directly from 1 Cor 11:3, which Athanasius believed. In addition, many church fathers explain that these instances of kephalē in 1 Cor 11:3 mean “source.” Remember, too, as I cited in my first response, Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon 235 lists archē in this quotation from Athanasius to mean “First Cause, Creator,” a subheading under “beginning, source, principle.” If the reference to “the One without beginning” was intended (as Arians believed) that only the Father, and not the Son is “without beginning,” I do not believe that is true, because John 1:1–2 states, “In the beginning was the Word,” and 1:14 declares, “the Word became flesh,” so it clearly refers to Christ the Son.

       Preston responds, “I personally think there is more ambiguity here (in the two passages in Athanasius) regarding archē.”

       Phil Payne responds: In addition to all the reasons just listed, “the One without beginning” clearly refers to source, so the context confirms that this passage means, “the One without beginning, the source [ἀρχή] of everything that exists through the Son.”

       Preston responds: “I said ‘assume’ since you didn’t say that archē could mean other things like ‘leader’ or ‘beginning’ but for such an such reason I believe the best translation is ‘source’ here.”

       Phil Payne responds: The entire 56 page study I provided to Preston is structured around different possible meanings of kephalē, repeatedly giving reasons for the meaning “source.” It repeatedly cites different meanings for archē from the Patristic Greek Lexicon. Regarding this specific passage, it argues that archē means “source” as follows: “This statement’s ‘generated him as his source (ἀρχή)’ specifies the sense of “source.” Because God created all things through Christ (1 Cor. 8:6), they together are the source of everything that exists.”

       Preston responds, “You also didn’t respond to my point that elsewhere Athanasius refers to “the bishops of illustrious cities” as “the heads (kephaloi) of great churches,” which seems to point clearly to their authoritative leadership over those churches. Do you agree with this interpretation of kephalē? Or do you think that the bishops are the “sources” of great churches?

       Phil Payne responds: Yes, I do agree with your interpretation of this passage. But remember that Athanasius wrote this in the fourth century, which is the earliest any secular Greek lexicons I have ever found cites any occurrence of kephalē meaning “leader” in secular Greek literature.

       Preston asks why I object to his assertion that “Payne cites this [Photius] passage as proof that ‘many church fathers’ interpreted kephalē to mean ‘source’ and not ‘leader, authority over’.”

       Phil Payne’s response: I object because I did not “cite this passage as proof that ‘many church fathers’ interpreted kephalē to mean ‘source’ and not ‘leader, authority over’.” How can the meaning of a word by one writer “prove” what many other writers mean by it? I never claimed anything like this, let along called it “proof.” The passage Preston quotes from The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood simply lists the names of some of the church fathers who explained that “head” means “source.” Although note 22 states, “Payne simply lists Photius as one of several “church fathers,” citing Kroeger’s article in support,” I had also provided Preston with a more extended treatment, including, “Photius (ninth century) sums up explanations by earlier Greek fathers.” I explicitly identified Photius as “ninth century,” whose explanation “sums up explanations by earlier Greek fathers that κεφαλή in 1 Cor 11:3 means source.”

       Phil Payne’s response to Preston’s second response, point 4:

       Preston responds, “Photius is writing in the 9th century AD and it’s misleading to include him in a list of “church fathers.”

       Phil Payne responds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Church_Fathers lists a dozen “church fathers” from the 9th century and following, including Photius the Great, “Pillar of Orthodoxy and author of Bibliotheca,” who died AD 893.

       Preston responds, “you also didn’t respond to the fact that the rest of the passage in Photius that you left off of your quote suggests that kephalē includes some sense of ‘authority’.”

       Phil Payne responds: Photius explains that he understands kephalē to mean “being made by” and then twice as “begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς)” and concludes, “The analogy is suitable and fits together.” Note that Grudem’s own translation adds words that are not in the Greek that conceal that Photius is explaining “head” “as begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς).” Grudem translates “as begetter” “as a begetter.” The little word “a” changes Photius’s explanation of “head” “as begetter” to a statement that the Father is “a begetter.” Then Grudem changes “the head (κεφαλή) of the woman is the man because he is her begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς),” by unjustifiably changing the default assumed verb “is” to “exists” and inserting an “as” that is not in the Greek. “He is her begetter and originator” is a far more natural translation than Grudem’s “he exists as her begetter and originator.” So again, Grudem’s translation changes Photius’s explanation of what “head” conveys to the independent statement, “he exists as her better and originator.” My own translation reflects the Greek far more accurately:
       For Christ is the head (κεφαλή) of us who believe … being made by him … But the head (κεφαλή) of Christ is God even the Father, as begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς) and of like substance with him. And the head (κεφαλή) of the woman is the man because he is her begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς) and of like substance with her.”
       Note that Photius’s explanation of the meaning of “head” “as begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς)” are introduced with “as” to explain the meaning of “head.” Photius introduces the additional comment differently, without “as”: “and of like substance with him.” Furthermore, this third comment is conceptually completely distinct and unlike “begetter and originator,” which are clearly synonyms the explain “head.” This added comment reflects many statements by early church fathers about this verse intended to undermine Arian teachings that Christ is not God.

       Preston then quotes Grudem for text following this. I do not have access now to Photius’s continuing text, so my comments are based on Grudem’s translation. Based on extensive examination of Grudem’s translations in the past, I do not assume that Grudem’s translations are accurate. In fact, I have found Grudem’s translations and other assertions to be extremely tendentious, regularly concealing both the meaning of “head” when it implies “source” and clues in the text explaining that “head” means “source.”

       I have so far only carefully read two of Preston’s posts, but they appear consistently to reproduce Grudem’s translations. Whether Preston realizes it or not, in doing this. Preston has become a megaphone for Grudem’s misleading translations.

       Before making some comments regarding Grudem’s translation of the that text that follow’s Photius’s explanation of the meaning of “head,” I will give a few examples of Grudem’s tendentious translations that read ideas into the text that are not actually in the text:

       LCL translates Philo, De congressu quaerendae eruditionis Gratia 12 #61, “of all the members of the clan here described Esau is the progenitor (ὁ γενάρχης ἐστὶν Ἐσαῦ), the head (κεφαλή) as it were of the whole creature.” Philo consistently uses the word γενάρχης to refer to the founding ancestor of a family. Nevertheless, Grudem suggests in Recovering Biblical Manhood and “Womanhood (1991, henceforth “RBMW”), 454 the alternate translation, “Esau is the ruler of all the clan here described, the head as of a living animal.” This instance of γενάρχης, however, cannot mean “ruler of created beings” as Grudem suggests because this “sense invariably refers to a god,” as Richard S. Cervin has documented in, “On the Significance of Kephalē (Head): A Study of the Abuse of One Greek Word,” Missing Voices (Minneapolis, Minn.: CBE, 2014), 15. Grudem also calls this “head” metaphor a simile. Philo, however, does not say “as head,” but that Esau “is the progenitor, the head as it were of the whole creature.” The “as” clause compares the clan to a creature. Esau is its “head,” explained as “progenitor,” namely its “source.”

       Grudem correctly notes in RBMW 455 that instances of εἰς κεφαλήν (“as head”) in Artemidorus are not metaphors. Nevertheless, he asserts on the same page that all LXX instances of εἰς κεφαλήν are used “metaphorically” “meaning ‘authority over/ruler.’” He never acknowledges that instances of εἰς κεφαλήν (“as head”) in the LXX may not be metaphors. This is crucial because most of the LXX examples Grudem claims to be metaphors actually state εἰς κεφαλήν.

       Grudem in his Appendix to George W. Knight III’s The Role Relationship of Men & Women, 65, identified his translations as LCL “where available.” Nevertheless, on page 74 Gruden replaced LCL’s Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 125, “draw their life from the forces in the head”—which conveys “source”—with “which are animated by the powers in the head” and omitted the LCL explicit “source” explanation. Furthermore, Grudem writes in Evangelical Feminism 595–96 that Philo here alludes “to Deuteronomy 28:13” and alleges that “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’.” In fact, the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 28 nowhere mentions Israel’s ruling over the nations or having the nations serve them.

       Grudem is also an unreliable guide to what secular Greek dictionaries state. Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism, 590 asserts, “Liddell-Scott was the only Greek-English lexicon that even mentioned the possibility of the meaning ‘source’ for κεφαλή.” But in fact, many lexicons cite κεφαλή meaning source. The ninth-century lexicographer Photius explained κεφαλή in 1 Cor 11:3 as “begetter” (γεννήτωρ) and “originator” (προβολεύς) (Staab, Pauluskommentare 567.1–2 regarding 1 Cor 11:3). The twelfth-century Johannes Zonaras Lexicon, the sixteenth-century lexicons by Petrina, Estienne, and Budé, Tusanus, Gesner and Junius, and later lexicons by Passow, Pape, Schenkl, Woodhouse, Bailly, Bölting, Rost, Feyerabend, Montanari, and Banks also list the meaning source for κεφαλή. NIDNTT states that in 1 Cor 11:3 “head is probably to be understood not as ‘chief’ or ‘ruler’ but as ‘source’ or ‘origin.’”

       Grudem continues by asserting, “All … lexicons … for ancient Greek, or their editors … give kephalē the meaning ‘person in authority over.’” LSJ lists forty-nine figurative meanings for κεφαλή, including various examples meaning source. It does not, however, list leader, authority or anything similar as a meaning for κεφαλή. None of its supplements, by Barber, Renehan, and Glare, nor the lexicons by Moulton and Milligan, F. Preisigke, P. Chantraine, or S. C. Woodhouse, nor the twelve additional Greek lexicons cited by Richard Cervin give even one example near Paul’s time where κεφαλή means leader or authority. Heinrich Schlier’s TDNT 3:674 states, “[I]n secular usage κεφαλή is not employed for the head of a society. This is first found in the sphere of the Gk. OT.” Apart from New Testament lexicons, the vast majority of Greek lexicons list no meaning related to leader. The only two citations meaning leader this author has found in secular Greek lexicons are citations from the fourth century AD. Liddell and Scott’s seventh and eighth editions identify the meaning “chief” as “Byzantine.” Dhimitrakou’s dictionary lists the meaning “leader” as medieval.

       Grudem is also an unreliable guide to which passages are in the Septuagint. Regarding “The head of Damascus is Rasim” (Isa 7:8). Grudem writes that κεφαλή means “ruler” here in the “LXX” (Evangelical Feminism 545; “Survey” 72–73, “Septuagint”) “used … by the New Testament authors” (RBMW 428, 438). In fact, the LXX has no κεφαλή … Ῥασείν. Origen (ca. AD 185–254) added it, as the asterisk symbols () in Q and 48 show. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Isaias (3rd ed.; Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 25, 148; Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1949), 2:574 confirm this.

       Grudem in Evangelical Feminism 545 and RBMW 441–42 asserts that heads means “leaders” in 3 Kgdms (1 Kings) 8:1 (Alexandrinus only), “LXX … ‘with all the heads of the tribes.’ (2nd cent. BC).” But Rahlfs 1:646 notes that this was added by Origen in the second century AD. Furthermore, Grudem translates ῥάβδος “tribe,” a meaning apparently in no Greek lexicon. It is irrelevant that מטּה can mean either tribe or staff (BDB 641), because when מטּה means tribe, the LXX translates it φυλή 158 times (HRCS), never elsewhere ῥάβδος. All fifty-one times the LXX translates מטּה ῥάβδος, the meaning staff or rod fits the context.

       Now, back to Grudem’s translation of the end of the Photius’s explanation of 1 Cor 11:3:
       The analogy is suitable and fits together. But if you might understand the “of every man” [1 Cor 11:3] also to mean over the unbelievers, according to the word of the creation this (meaning) only is allowed: For having yielded to the man to reign over the others, he allowed him to remain under his own unique authority and rule not having established over him another ruler and supreme authority.”
       Photius had just explained “head” as “begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς),” Photius then considers a different understanding of “every man,” namely “to mean over the unbelievers, according to the word of the creation.” Christ’s “word of creation” of unbelievers, like Photius’s previous explanations of “head,” appears also to be a clear reference to Christ as their “head” in the sense of “source.”

       I do not have Photius’s text in Greek at hand to be able to confirm Grudem’s translation, but it appears that Wayne Grudem has added “meaning” since it is in parentheses. Without the insertion of “meaning,” “This only is allowed” could introduce something other than an interpretation of “head.”

       Note that what Grudem interprets as Photius’s explanation of “head” is very different from Photius’s own just stated explanations of “head” as “being made by” and “begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς)” (twice). It is also very different from the way Photius in Grudem’s translation describes this alternate interpretation explaining Christ as “head of every man” “to mean over the unbelievers, according to the word of the creation.”

       1 Cor 11:3 specifically refers to “the man” as the head of woman. Consequently, when Photius writes, “For having yielded authority to the man” readers would probably understand “the man” to have this same reference. Grudem, however, adds a note, “Here ‘the man’ refers to Christ as man.” How could readers know this? Photius is commenting on an alternative understanding of “every man” in “Christ is the head of every man,” namely literally “every man,” including unbelievers. So when Photius writes, “For having yielded to the man to reign over the others, he allowed him …” readers would probably assume that Christ “according to the word of the creation” is the one who “yielded to the man” and “allowed him …” But according to Grudem’s interpretation, the subject is God the Father, not Christ.

       In light of all these factors, both Grudem’s translation and interpretation requires careful reassessment.

       Phil Payne’s response to Preston’s second response, point 5:

       Thank you, Preston, for writing that my comment regarding the dominant use of archēgos in patristic literature to mean “first cause, author” based on the analysis in Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon is “very helpful.” Note that this is just one of several points in Grudem’s translation of this passage that conceals the emphasis on “source” in what Eusebius actually wrote. Grudem adds the words “to be” and “for” that go beyond what both Paul and Eusebius wrote, changing “he gave him, head over all things, to the church” to “he gave him to be head over all things for the church.” This gives the false impression that this is a statement that Jesus was given to be head for the church and so may imply that Jesus is head of the church. In fact, Eph 1:20–¬22’s repeated spatial imagery emphasizes Jesus as the apex of all authority (20 “raised him … in the heavenly places.” 21 “far above … above,” 22 “under his feet … over”) indicates that Paul intended “head” to convey its common Greek meaning, “apex” or “top.” This passage teachs that God gave Jesus, the apex of all authority, to the church. “To” is by far the most common meaning conveyed by the dative, and “to” is almost always its meaning following “gave.” Furthermore, Grudem’s translation of μονογενοῦς as “only” instead of “only begotten” does not follow its normal meaning in patristic literature, especially in literature opposing Arian teaching, as here. Grudem’s translation conceals one more reference to “source” in this passage. The translation I sent to Preston, but with words in bold (the blog may not show them) that imply “source.” It reflects the Greek much more closely than Grudem’s, which Preston quoted. The translation I (Payne) sent to Preston is:
       The great apostle teaches that God is head of the Son himself, and the Son of the church, in one place saying, “God is the head of Christ,” and in another saying concerning the Son, “and he gave him, head over all things, to the church, which is his body.” Therefore, he [the Son] would be the originator (ἀρχηγός) and head (κεφαλή) of the church, and the Father of him [the Son]. Thus, the one God is Father of the only begotten (μονογενοῦς) Son, and the one head (κεφαλή) even of Christ himself. Since there is one source (ἀρχή) and head (κεφαλή), how could there be two gods? Is not that one alone, the one above whom no one is higher? Neither does he [the Son] claim any other cause (αἴτιος) of himself, but he has acquired the familial, unbegun, unbegotten deity from the monarchial authority, and he [God] has given to the Son his own divinity and life; who through him caused all things to exist.
       Note that all three of Eusebius’s explanations of “head” by apposition refer to “source”:
       the originator (ἀρχηγός) and head (κεφαλή) of the church
       there is one source (ἀρχή) and head (κεφαλή)
       the only begotten (μονογενοῦς) Son, and the one head (κεφαλή) even of Christ himself.

       Preston responded: “Also, you didn’t address the fact that in your forthcoming article, you left off the part of the quote from Eusebius, where he says: “…who sends him, who appoint him, who commands, who teaches, who commits all things to him, who glorifies him, who exalts (him), who declares him king of all, who has committed all judgment to him.”

       Phil Payne responds: The reason I left this off in the excerpt from my forthcoming book (not article) is that it does not directly address the meaning of “head.” Unlike the three instances where by apposition, Eusebius indicates how he intended κεφαλή to be understood, κεφαλή occurs nowhere in this sentence. I doubt that anyone thinks that Eusebius thought that κεφαλή meant all of these things! These are simply additional affirmations regarding the Father. Note, however that within these affirmations, “who sends him” implies that the Father is the source from whom the incarnate Son came. Furthermore, the beginning statements refer to Christ’s incarnate ministry in which he took on himself the form of a servant and learned obedience (Heb 5:8, implying that this was not his state prior to the incarnation), but the ending comments regarding the risen Christ imply no subordination: “who commits all things to him, who glorifies him, who exalts (him), who declares him king of all, who has committed all judgment to him.”

       Preston’s original post states, “Wayne Grudem … point[s] out that there is absence of the meaning ‘source’ for kephalē in Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon.” This is misleading. PGL 749’s κεφαλή entry states: “C. of Christ; 1. As head of creation”, citing “Sym.sirm.1 anath.26 ap Ath. Syn.27(M.26.740B), Cyr.Arcad.(p76.20ff.; 52.63E)” and Photius, which all clearly convey “source.” Furthermore, PGL 749 states, “4. Exeg. 1Cor.11:3 (cont.), as equivalent of ἀρχή,” citing the very passages from Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore, and Cosmas Indicopleustes where “head” means “source.” PGL 234–35 states: “ἀρχή, I. Beginning, source, principle … D. Theol.; 1. In rel. to creation, First Cause, Creator” again citing the very passages from Athanasius and Eusebius which I have shown to convey “source.” Therefore it is not true “that there is absence of the meaning ‘source’ for kephalē in Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon” even if the word “source” does not occur in that entry. PGL citations are in Greek. Very few include an English translation.

       Reply
5. 

   Philip B. Payne on November 18th, 2023 - 7:51pm

   Preston concludes, “The first two passages from Cyril of Alexandria are the only texts where kephalē means “source” with no clear sense of “authority over, leader.” Other passages do interpret kephalē to mean “source,” but the larger context suggests that the authors did not see this as excluding notions of authority or leadership.”
   There is a huge semantic distinction between “head” in the same occurrence meaning both “source” and “authority” and Preston’s comment that “the authors did not see this as excluding notions of authority or leadership.” Preston should distinguish between what church fathers explain “head” means in 1 Cor 11:3 and what they believe about the inferiority of women and the rule of men over women. Just because a church father states that men ought to have authority over women or that God has authority, does not mean that their explanation of “head” as “source” in 1 Cor 11:3 somehow shows that they believed that “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 means both “source” and “authority.” It is true that words can have various meanings in different contexts, but it is rare for an author to intend in one specific context for a word to mean, for instance, both “source” and “authority.” When church fathers explain that each of the three instances of “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 means “source,” that is probably exactly what they meant. Unless the reference is to active creative source, which can implicitly carry with it the prerogatives of the creator, references to “head” as source are most naturally understood to mean simply “source.” It is only because English idiom so often uses “head” meaning “leader” that English readers read the idea of “authority” into “head.” This was not true of Greek readers. One needs clear examples to state that “head” was a metaphor for “authority” in Greek literature. Statements describing the head are not metaphors, such as Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata 4:8), “the head is the leading (to hegemonikon) part.”

   Preston writes regarding Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5 3 that he “leans toward “absolute ruler (kurios)” as further defining kephalē as “authority over.” Logically, however, neither “ruler” nor “authority over” fits “of his own essence.” This statement follows, “the Demiurge imagined that he created all these things of himself.” In this context, it is natural to understand archē to mean “source.” “Source” used in apposition in this context explains that “head” here means “source”: “the head (kephalē) and source (archē) of his own essence.”

   Preston writes regarding the “Macrostich” Arian Confession cited by Athanasius, Syn. Armin. 26.3.35, “This passage seems to clearly understand kephalē to mean “beginning” or “source,” though in my brief survey of scholarly literature, I have not found a contemporary writer who interacts with this passage.” In fact, I quote this passage in the except from my new book that I sent to Preston: “the Son to have been generated before ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate himself like the Father, but to have the Father who generated him as his source [archē]— ‘The head [kephalē] of Christ is God’.” Only the meaning “source” fits “the Father who generated him as his source.” The Father is not the “beginning” of the Son. The translation “beginning,” if distinguished in meaning from “source,” implies that the Son is an extension of the Father, not a separate person, contrary to Trinitarian theology. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact criticize Arian misuse of 1 Cor 11:3 to subordinate the present or eternal Christ to the Father.

   I also provided to Preston another passage where “head” clearly means “source.” Cosmas Indicopleustes, (sixth century) Topographia Christiana 5.209 (PG 88:224A) writes similarly, “For just as Adam is head [kephalē] of all people in this world, because he is their cause [aitios] and father, in this way also is the Lord Christ according to the flesh head [κεφαλή] of the church and the father of the age to come.” Cosmas Indicopleustes’s explanation that “Adam is head (kephalē) of all people in this world, because he is their cause (aitios)” makes it clear that he intended kephalē here to mean “the source of their existence.” “In this way also” clarifies that similarly, Christ is kephalē, namely the source of the church.

   Reply
   • 

     Preston Sprinkle on November 20th, 2023 - 7:37pm

     Once again, thank you Phil for your meticulous and thoughtful comment. I’ll respond to several things.

     You write: “Preston should distinguish between what church fathers explain “head” means in 1 Cor 11:3 and what they believe about the inferiority of women and the rule of men over women. Just because a church father states that men ought to have authority over women or that God has authority, does not mean that their explanation of “head” as “source” in 1 Cor 11:3 somehow shows that they believed that “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 means both “source” and “authority.””

     This is a good point, though as I stated in my previous comment, it’s not just that some fathers used kephalē to mean “source” and also elsewhere believed that husbands were in authority over their wives. Rather, at least with Theodore and Clement of Alexandria), they understand kephalē to mean “source” and then IN THE SAME CONTEXT seem to imply that Adam being the source of Eve means that he is also her ruler. Again, when Theodore interprets 1 Cor 11:7-8, where Paul teases out the implications of Adam being the source of Eve, Theodore interprets this as: “He calls the woman “glory” but surely not “image,” because it applied faintly, since “glory” looks at obedience but “image” looks at rulership (eis to archikon).” This is why it seems to me that Theodore believed that being someone’s “source” implies “authority.”

     Plus, regarding Clement, you write: Statements describing the head are not metaphors, such as Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata 4:8), “the head is the leading (to hegemonikon) part.” Again, here’s the full quote from Clement:

     “The ruling power is therefore the head (kephalē). And if “the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,” the man, “being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.” Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, “Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife…””

     I’m happy letting the reader decide if they think Clement is using to mean “source” in such a way that does not include any notion of “authority over.”

     You write: ” It is only because English idiom so often uses “head” meaning “leader” that English readers read the idea of “authority” into “head.” This was not true of Greek readers. One needs clear examples to state that “head” was a metaphor for “authority” in Greek literature.”

     I think this is demonstrably false, as I’ve shown in my previous two blog posts. “Leader/authority over” was much more common than “source” in Greek literature, especially in context where “head” refers to a person in relationship to other people.

     You write: “Preston writes regarding the “Macrostich” Arian Confession cited by Athanasius, Syn. Armin. 26.3.35, “This passage seems to clearly understand kephalē to mean “beginning” or “source,” though in my brief survey of scholarly literature, I have not found a contemporary writer who interacts with this passage.” In fact, I quote this passage in the except from my new book that I sent to Preston”

     Thank you for this! Several things I said about this creed are problematic. First, yes, I went back and you do indeed address this in your forthcoming piece. As my next statement said: “I very well could have missed it…” (you didn’t mention this part), and indeed, I did miss it. Second, I actually didn’t totally miss it, because I did cite Athanasius, Syn. Armin. 26.3.35 earlier in my post and even interacted with your treatment of this passage! When I later discussed it, I was treating it as a separate passage, when in fact it was the same one I interacted with earlier. This is an editorial blunder on my part. Third, in my second reference to the Macrostich confession, I didn’t say that it was an Arian creed (my first reference did say this). Doesn’t this mean that it’s probably not the best piece of evidence for what the church fathers believed about kephale and 1 Cor 11:3? Again, all my editorial blunders aside, that was my main point.

     You critique me by saying: “I also provided to Preston another passage where “head” clearly means “source.” Cosmas Indicopleustes, (sixth century) Topographia Christiana 5.209 (PG 88:224A).” But as I clearly point out at the beginning of my post, I was looking at church fathers writing from around AD 100-400, not those writing in the 6th century, since I think by then we are getting so far removed from the New Testament era, that I don’t find these references to be very significant.

     Regarding Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5 3, the whole passage feels a bit odd to me, which is why I said ” this one is difficult to sort out.” I guess I’m not as confident as you that “head” means “source” in the following phrase: “the source (kephalē) and source (archē) of his own essence.” I agree that “authority over and source of his own essence” is logically confusing. I do think it’s less confusing, though, than your reading it as “source and source of his own essence.” I keep reading your interpretation, then I go back to the passage, and I guess I just don’t find your interpretation particularly convincing. But again, I think the passage isn’t super clear, which is why I ended by saying “I hold to this interpretation [that kephale means authority over] loosely.”

     Reply
6. 

   Philip B. Payne on November 18th, 2023 - 8:21pm

   At several points, Preston’s explanation of Chrysostom’s Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians appears to state the opposite of what Chrysostom wrote. Preston writes:

   “Chrysostom is commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:3 and responding to Arian heretics who say this text shows that the Son is not of the same divine essence as the Father. He goes on to say:
   “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.”

   Preston writes, “As far as I can tell, Chrysostom is granting the premise of his opponents, that the relationship between the Father and Son correlates with the husband and the wife. We should notice that if Chrysostom understood kephalē to mean “source” with no sense of “authority over, leader,” he could have nipped the whole debate in the bud. But he doesn’t. He agrees that “head” means “authority” but will go on to show why this does not imply ontological subordination.”

   Chrysostom, however, makes it abundantly clear what the premise of his opponents is that he refutes: that the Son is under subjection to the Father. Chrysostom is, therefore, not granting the premise of his opponents. Preston ignores all of Chrysostom’s statements explaining that kephalē means “source.” Furthermore, Chrysostom does not teach that “head” in this passage means “authority.” Nor does Chrysostom in this passage mention “ontological subordination.” Preston’s interpretation follows Wayne Grudem. Wayne interprets 1 Cor 11:3 to teach the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Fortunately, Preston rejects that heresy, but his interpretations of many church father as teaching “the head of Christ is God” as expressing authority is precisely what many of those church fathers were opposing!

   Chrysostom, Hom. in ep. 1 ad Cor. 26β (PG 61:214; NPNF1 12:150–51) argues against heretics who read from this passage “that He [Christ] is under subjection.” Chrysostom explains that the heretics interpret this passage as though it argues, “[A]s the man governs the wife … so also the Father, Christ.” Chrysostom replies, “And who could ever admit this?… Consider to what meanness thou wilt bring Him [the Son] … And who will endure this?… For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master.” Chrysostom here refutes the heretical interpretation that head in “God is the head of Christ” means governs.

   Chrysostom in this passage identifies three source relationships in 1 Cor 11:3, none of which Preston mentions. He writes of the relationship of men to God and Christ as “toward the authors of their being,” of the Father to the Son as “the Father … begat such a Son, not as a slave under command, but as free,” and of woman to the man as “her having been made out of him,” affirming “that she was made as she was out of him.” Chrysostom explains: “Wherefore, you see, she [Eve] was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was ‘bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh’ (Gen ii. 23); but of rule or subjection he no where [sic] made mention unto her” (NPNF1 12:150–51). Chrysostom highlights that woman was not subject to man prior to the fall. This indicates that Chrysostom understood “the man is kephalē of woman” in 1 Cor 11:3 as a reference to source in reference to a time where “source” entailed no authority. In section 26γ of this passage, Chrysostom explains the metaphorical reference to Christ as head of the church as their “perfect oneness [enōsin aribē], and [Christ being] the cause [aitian] and the first source [archē tēn prōtēn].” NPNF1 12:151 leaves aitian untranslated. Chrysostom then comments, “[T]he source is more honorable [kai hē archē timiōtera].”

   Chrysostom is not a perfect guide regarding what Paul meant by 1 Cor 11:3. Chrysostom interprets “Christ is the head/source of every man” as Christ being the source of Christian believers (NPNF1 12:150). This, however, imports something foreign to 1 Cor 11:3, namely “Christ head of the church,” which elsewhere Chrysostom explains hierarchically (e.g., NPNF1 13:144). Nor is it clear that the Bible ever teaches “the eternal generation of the Son.” BDAG 569 defines the word sometimes translated “only begotten,” monogenēs, “pert. to being the only one of its kid within a specific relationship, one and only, only” or “pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category.” Consequently, although Chrysostom was right to object to subordinationist Christology and was right to interpret “God is the head of Christ” as a reference to God being the source of Christ, Chrysostom was probably not right in interpreting this as a reference to Christ being begotten of the Father. Paul was probably simply referring to Christ in the incarnation coming from the Godhead.

   Nor regarding women in general is Chrysostom a reliable guide. Unfortunately, he adopted the view of women of his age. He teaches “woman’s inferiority” (NPNF1 12:151.4). He asserts, “We are ordained to rule over them [women]” (NPNF1 13:116) and “The wife is a second authority. Let not her then demand equality for she is under the head” (NPNF1 13:146). When discussing marriage, Chrysostom often affirms rule by the husband using head-body language (NPNF1 12:153, 156; 13:62, 116, 144 quoting Eph 5:23, 146–47 “for she is under the head,” 397 quoting Eph 5:23). One should note that his references to “in place of the head” are not metaphors.

   Reply
   • 

     Preston Sprinkle on November 20th, 2023 - 8:15pm

     There’s a lot to respond to here. In preparing my response, I found myself re-quoting large chunks of what I actually in my post. So, instead of doing that, I would just encourage the reader (those who are still interested!) to read my section on Chrysostom’s Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians to see if I’m misreading him.

     The key for me comes toward the end of the section I quoted, where Chrysostom makes a distinction between the “rule and subjection” that exists between a master and slave, and the kind of submission that a wife yields to her husband and that Christ yields to the Father. Chrysostom writes:

     “For what if the wife be under subjection to us? It is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God…For if we admire the Son that He was obedient so as to come even unto death, and the death of the cross, and reckon this the great wonder concerning Him; we ought to admire the Father also, that He begot such a son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience and giving counsel.”

     And then the next part of the homily quotes 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, and other passages that talks about a wife submitting to her husband as one who is equal to him, just as the son submits to the father as one equal to him.

     You critique me on the grounds that “Chrysostom in this passage” does not “mention ‘ontological subordination’.” Of course he doesn’t use that phrase. But as I read the passage, specifically how he distinguishes between the subjugation of a master over his slave and the submission a wife freely gives to her husband, it seems like something like “ontological subordination” is the CONCEPT that Chrysostom is arguing against without dismissing the husband’s/Father’s authority over the wife/Son.

     In short, Chrysostom is perfectly fine with a wife submitting to her husband (and refers to kephale to describe the husband’s authority over his wife), but is reacting to heretics who jump all over this passage (i.e. 1 Cor 11:3) to show that Christ was not truly God or unequal to the father.

     As for eternal subordination, what is meant by the phrase, whether people like Grudem and others are echoing the theology of the heretics that were condemned by the early church, I’m still thinking through all of that. While I disagree with eternal subordination, I don’t think people who critique Grudem and others are fairly representing what they’re actually saying. Again, it seems that the early church was opposing ontological subordination, not a relationship where the son freely submits to and obeys the father in a relationship between two equals.

     It seems like you assume that any relationship where one person is in authority over another implies ontological inequality. (My pastors are equal to me, and yet they are still my spiritual authority.) But that’s a discussion for another day!

     Reply
     • 

       Philip B. Payne on November 30th, 2023 - 5:23am

       Philip B. Payne’s response to Preston’s 4th post response 3
       Preston responded: It’s not just that some fathers used kephalē to mean “source” and also elsewhere believed that husbands were in authority over their wives. Rather, at least with Theodore and Clement of Alexandria), they understand kephalē to mean “source” and then IN THE SAME CONTEXT seem to imply that Adam being the source of Eve means that he is also her ruler. Again, when Theodore interprets 1 Cor 11:7-8, where Paul teases out the implications of Adam being the source of Eve, Theodore interprets this as: “He calls the woman “glory” but surely not “image,” because it applied faintly, since “glory” looks at obedience but “image” looks at rulership (eis to archikon).” This is why it seems to me that Theodore believed that being someone’s “source” implies “authority.”

       Phil Payne’s response: I’ll begin with Theodore. As I wrote before, what Preston’s original essay cites from Theodore of Mopsuestia is entirely about 1 Cor 11:7. None of Preston’s citation from Theodore mentions 11:8. It is only 11:8 that refers to “source” (“Man is not from woman, but woman from man”). 11:8 does confirm the meaning “source” in 11:3. The Theodore comment Preston cites is about 11:7 only: “He calls the woman ‘glory’ but surely not ‘image,’ because it applied faintly, since ‘glory’ looks at obedience but ‘image’ looks at rulership.” This statement by Theodore does not connect the concept of “source” with “authority.” If Theodore later states something that does address “what source means,” then Preston should cite it. But since Preston did not cite such a statement, he is not justified in asserting based on what he cites that Theodore “later connects the concept of ‘source’ with grounds for ‘authority’” or that this statement “teases out his [Theodore’s] theological understanding of what ‘source’ means” or “you misunderstood (or misrepresented) what I was saying” or that Theodore provides grounds for believing that “this text might be a case where kephalē means ‘source’ and ‘authority’.”

       Phil Payne’s response regarding Clement of Alexandria.
       Preston writes that Clement “understand[s] kephalē to mean “source” and then IN THE SAME CONTEXT seem to imply that Adam being the source of Eve means that he is also her ruler.” Preston writes, “Again, here’s the full quote from Clement:
       “The ruling power is therefore the head (kephalē). And if “the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,” the man, “being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.” Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, “Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife…”
       Preston correctly writes, “Clement “understand[s] kephalē to mean “source.” But what he asserts next is doubtful: “and then IN THE SAME CONTEXT seems to imply that Adam being the source of Eve means that he is also her ruler.” What Preston emphasizes is “IN THE SAME CONTEXT” is actually 60 lines after Clement’s explanation that “head” means “source.” Preston cites from ANF 2:240 only the beginning of what Clement wrote:
       The Stromata 4:8 (ANF 2, 420)
       “For I would have you to know,” says the apostle, “that the head (kephalē) of every man is Christ; and the headof the woman is the man [1 Cor 11:3]: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man” [1 Cor 11:8].
       Although Preston does not include it, Clement continues, “For neither is the woman without the man, nor is the man without the woman, in the Lord.” As I argue in my books, the Greek of 1 Cor 11:11 that Clement quotes affirms, “Nevertheless, neither is woman separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.” Based on 11:11, Clement argues at length (“For …”) the central message of this passage: that man and woman alike should have self-restraint and promote peace. All this indicates that Clement regarded “head” in 11:3 to mean “source,” and “source” in a way that man is not separate from woman. Clement’s emphasis on the equal responsibilities of men and women and their not being separate in the Lord does not appear to be congruent with Preston’s interpretation that “head” means both “source” and “authority.”
       Nothing in the 60 lines in ANF 2:240 following Clements treatment of “head” as “source” refers to man’s authority or the husbands authority over his wife. Clement continues by urging both men and women to philosophical reflection, discipline, and virtue. With no apparent connection to the rest of Clement’s message, shortly before the text that Preston quotes (which I cite 4 paragraphs above), Clement expresses his opinion that “males are preferable at everything.” Only at the end of these 60 lines of text does Clement mention anything about husband and wife:
       “Women are therefore to philosophize equally with men, though the males are preferable at everything, unless they have become effeminate. To the whole human race, then, discipline and virtue are a necessity, if they would pursue after happiness. And how recklessly Euripides writes sometimes this and sometimes that! On one occasion, “For every wife is inferior to her husband, though the most excellent one marry her that is of fair fame.” And on another:—
       “For the chaste is her husband’s slave,
       While she that is unchaste in her folly despises her consort.
       … . For nothing is better and more excellent,
       Than when as husband and wife ye keep house,
       Harmonious in your sentiments.”

       It is precisely at this point and in this context of husband-wife relationships that ANF 2:240 translates:
       “The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, [ANF 4:240 adds “submit yourselves,” but there is no “submit” in the Greek text of Stromata 4.8.64] to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the Church, and He is the Saviour of the body [note that the ANF translation obscures the emphatic apposition of the Greek of this passage that explains “head” as “savior”]. Husbands love your wife as Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh’” [Eph 5:21–23b, 25a-b, 28–29a]. Clement then quotes the entire ten verses of Col 3:18–4:1 and 3:11 followed by a citation from Matt 6:10 and all of Col 3:12–15. This kind of stringing together of citations from Scripture is called “pearl stringing.”

       In the verse Clement cites, 1 Cor 11:7, there is no reference to man being “lord of the woman” even though the ANF translation includes it in all in quote marks as though it were part of 1 Cor 11:7. In fact, the only mention of “authority” in 1 Cor 11:2–16 is Paul’s statement that “woman ought to have authority over her own head” in 11:10. The only statement in Clement’s preceding context that is related to man being “lord of the woman” is Clement’s citation from Euripides about a wife being “her husband’s slave.” Clement’s citations from Euripides are the first reference to husband-wife relations in this discussion. Clement does not explain state why he states either, “The ruling power is therefore the head” or that man is “lord of the woman.” The translation “therefore” seems to imply that “The ruling power is therefore the head” flows from something in the preceding text. Perhaps, just as Clement had shortly before stated, “males are preferable at everything [compared to women],” he is expressing a reason for his opinion that man is “lord of the woman.”
       Clement’s central and only clearly-stated argument in the portion of this passage Preston cites is that “the man, ‘being the image and glory of God,’ is lord of the woman.” Clement appears to assume some distinction that makes the man “the image and glory of God” in a way that the woman is not. Not only does Genesis not teach this, Genesis indicates no distinction between the image of God in man and in woman. Genesis teaches instead that together man and woman are given dominion over the earth with no distinction made between their authority. Nor does Paul ever state (including here) that there is a distinction between the image of God in man and woman. Clement’s preceding statement that “males are preferable at everything [compared to women]” and his following statement that man is “lord of the woman” indicate that Clement probably read into 1 Cor 11:7 that man, not woman, is “the image and glory of God” and that woman is just the glory of man. That, however, misses Paul clearly contrasting statements between what a man “ought not” (οὐκ ὀφείλει) do in 11:7 and what a woman “ought” (ὀφείλει) to do in 11:10. Paul inserts in verses 7b–9 a series of reasons why man ought not “cover his head” with long hair hanging down, as implied in 11:4 and stated in 11:14.

       H. Herter, “Effeminatus” (RAC 2:620–50) documents over 100 references in Greek literature expressing moral indignation over effeminate hairstyle by men. The greatest number are from Paul’s time. For example, Pseudo-Phocylides (30 BC – AD 40) wrote, “Long hair is not fit for men … because many rage for intercourse with a man.” Verse 7b states Paul’s first reason why men leading worship in prayer and prophecy should not “have [long hair] hanging down from their heads” is that “woman [not another man] is the glory of man.” Verse 9 reiterates this, “woman was made for man.” The reasons in 11:7b–9 why a man should not wear effeminate hairstyles are also good reasons for a woman to avoid symbolizing uncontrolled sexuality by letting her hair down. This is why Paul introduces v. 10, “On account of this, a woman ought to exercise authority over her head.” Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11, indicates that he understands this: “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.”

       I agree with Preston that Clement wrote, and presumably, therefore, believed that “The ruling power is therefore the head” and that man “is lord of the woman.” Not only was male superiority the conventional wisdom in Clement’s time in the third century, Clement had just stated, “males are preferable at everything.” Clement apparently adopted the emerging view of some medical writers that the brain (ἐγκέφαλος “within the head”) rather than the heart or liver controlled the body.

       Modern science regards the brain as the control center of the body and so reinforces the metaphorical use of “head” for leader, but this was not the consensus in ancient Greek thought. Although some medical writers argued that the brain is the seat of cognition, Plato “moved the command center to the heart (Tim. 70a ff.), followed by Aristotle and Diocles (3) of Carystus. OCD (2003), 82–85, 83 documents that the debate continued until Galen reasserted the very early primacy of the liver in the 2nd cent. AD.” The ancient Greek world, exemplified by Paul’s use of “heart,” commonly believed that the heart, not the head, was the center of emotions and spirit, the “central governing place of the body” (Aristotle, Mot. an. 2.703a.35; Part. an. 3.4.665b and 3.10.672b.17). Aristotle held that the heart was not only the seat of control but also the seat of intelligence.

       Classicist Michael Wigodsky of Stanford confirmed in personal conversations with me (P. B. Payne) Sept. 28 and Oct. 4, 1984 that many, even of the doctors with the most advanced anatomical understanding of the brain, did not really believe that the brain exerted more control over the body than the heart. Such a notion seemed to contradict the nearly universal belief that, since the life is in the blood, the heart must be the center of life. In De rerum natura 3.138–145 Lucretius (ca. 97–54 BC) argues for the Epicurean distinction: “the rational power, which we call the mind and the intellect … has its fixed place in the central area of the breast, because this is where fear and dread surge up, this is the vicinity in which joys caress us; here therefore is the mind and the intellect. The rest of the soul, distributed throughout the whole body, obeys, and moves at the mind’s impulse and behest” (P. Michael Brown, trans., Lucretius: De Rerum Natura III (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1997), 28–29). This shows that it is a mistake to assume that references to “mind” in Greek literature were associated with the head. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the idea of authority is not normally associated with the word for “head” in Greek literature.

       Preston writes, however, that Clement’s words separated by 60 lines of ANF text “IN THE SAME CONTEXT seem to imply that Adam being the source of Eve means that he is also her ruler.” But Clement’s earlier words are not “IN THE SAME CONTEXT.” Nor does Clement’s earlier explanation fit what he writes here. I do not see clear indication in the text that Clement was teaching “that Adam being the source of Eve means that he is also her ruler.” Preston infers this from the following citation, but the text does not mention “Adam,” “Eve,” or “source”. Having just asserted that “The ruling power is therefore the head,” Clement may have included part of verse 3 (“the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman”) with all the verses that follow (known as “pearl-stringing”) because it, like the prior assertion contains the word “head” and introduces the heart of his argument: “the man, ‘being the image and glory of God,’ is lord of the woman.” It is difficult to see any clear logical interrelationship between the dozens of verses Clement quotes next. Thy seem more for spiritual edification than to establish a hierarchy of husband over wife. Why, for instance, is the immediately following quotation, “Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” This is an affirmation of mutual submission, not of the husband’s authority.

       Clement’s statement, “The ruling power is therefore the head (kephalē)” is not a quotation from Scripture, nor is it clear that it is a comment about Scripture, nor it is a metaphor—it is a literal reference to “the head.”
       I should have made it more clear that I was thinking of readers of the New Testament and Greek literature available when the New Testament was written when I wrote (here clarified), “It is only because English idiom so often uses ‘head’ meaning ‘leader’ that English readers of the New Testament read the idea of ‘authority’ into ‘head.’ This was not in general true of Greek readers. One needs clear examples to state that ‘head’ was a metaphor for ‘authority’ in Greek literature.” As medical knowledge advanced, some people did believe that the mind resided in the brain, and that the brain, not the heart or liver, ruled the body. Based on Clement’s comment, “The ruling power is therefore the head (kephalē),” in the third century, it appears that Clement did believe this.

       Preston responds, “I think this is demonstrably false, as I’ve shown in my previous two blog posts. “Leader/authority over” was much more common than “source” in Greek literature, especially in context where “head” refers to a person in relationship to other people.”
       Phil Payne responds: I was in the midst of formulating a response to Preston second post when Preston alerted me to his responses to my responses to his fourth post. I greatly appreciate this notification. I am torn between responding to the latest thread and completing my response to Preston’s second post. It is, of course, much better to respond to specific passages and arguments. I can do this better by responding to that earlier post. Nevertheless, I do not want to ignore key disputed issues, so I will give a summary response here.

       1. One needs clear examples to state that “head” was a metaphor for “authority” in Greek literature.” Immediately after citing this, Preston wrote, “I think this is demonstrably false, as I’ve shown in my previous two blog posts.” I hope Preston does not really dismiss the need for clear examples to state that “head” was a metaphor for “authority” at a particular time in Greek literature. Grudem repeatedly acknowledges that this is the crucial question. Unfortunately, in practice Grudem includes many examples as metaphors that are not metaphors. Peter Glare makes this very point, “in many of the examples, and I think all the Plutarch ones, we are dealing with similes or comparisons and the word itself is used in a literal sense” (cited in Evangelical Feminism, 588). Many of the examples Preston apparently includes in his 15–20 cases where “head” means “authority” are not metaphors. Consequently, I am not sure whether Preston understands how fundamental this is in establishing a new figurative meaning of a word, in this case the meaning “authority” for “head.”

       2. Preston has an unrealistically low summary count of instances where “head” means “source.” His summary refers to “5 or 6 references that mean ‘source’.” This does not include the cases I provided to Preston including where κεφαλή means, according to LSJ 945, “of muscles, origin, Gal. UP7.14” and its Supplement by both Barber and Glare citing Hippocrates “Coac.498.”
       Most importantly, it does not include any of the twenty citations of “Zeus the head” I provided to Preston. Many of these explain “head” as ἀρχή (source). LSJ 945 identifies “head” in this saying to mean “source”: “generally, source, origin, Ζεὺς κεφαλή (v. l. ἀρχή) … Orph.Fr.21a”. A scholion introduce this saying, “he is himself the cause (αἴτιος) of all things.” This explicitly identifies “Zeus the head” as the source of all things. The final verb τελεῖται, “are fulfilled” requires that κεφαλή means “source” to preserve the saying’s symmetry: “Zeus the source (κεφαλή), Zeus the middle, Zeus through whom all things are fulfilled.” This triad is the primary context for determining the meaning of κεφαλή here, but there is also a natural logical progression from Zeus being first in the preceding statement to Zeus being the source. The myriad references to Zeus as the source through whom things come into existence support understanding κεφαλή in this saying to mean “source.” These include Acts 17:28’s, “τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν quotation from Aratus, Phaen. 5a, τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν, ‘for we are his offspring’. Luke’s introductory “as even some of your poets have said,” highlights this quotation as widely known.

       Orphic fragment 168 and both the LCL and Johan C. Thom editions of Pseudo-Aristotle, On the Cosmos 7 p. 401 a 27–30 repeat this saying using the same words except for substituting τέτυκται for τελεῖται, so this line ends, “from Zeus all things exist.” This reading further emphasizes Zeus as the source from whom all things come into existence. For this version as well to convey a symmetrical meaning, κεφαλή must convey the meaning “source”: “Zeus the source (κεφαλή) … from Zeus all things exist.”

       A scholion quotes Ζεὺς ἀρχή, Ζεὺς μέσσα, Διὸς δ’ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται and then explains: “And he is the source (ἀρχή), as the producing cause (ὡς ποιητικὸν αἴτιον), and he is the end as the final cause, and he is the middle, as being present in everything equally, and everything partakes of him in a variety of ways.” Ἀρχή, which replaces κεφαλή, is explained “as the producing cause,” which specifies that ἀρχή means the active cause or “source,” not merely “beginning.”

       Eusebius, Praep. ev. 3.9.2, citing Porphyry, quotes the Orphic hymn to “Zeus the head” introduced with “he created all things” and followed by “Zeus alone first cause of all” and “[Zeus] is the mind from which he brings forth all things, and by his thoughts creates them” (Edwin Hamilton Gifford, trans., Eusebius: Preparation for the Gospel (2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981) 1:100–1). These comments further confirm the meaning “source.”

       According to the ‘Introduction to the Text’ by K. Tsantsanoglou accessed 5 Aug. 2021 at http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2012/06/derveni-papyrus-interdisciplinary.html, “[T]he oldest [Greek] literary papyrus, dated roughly between 340 and 320 B.C.,” the Derveni Papyrus, column 17, line 12 includes Ζεὺς κεφα̣[λή, Ζεὺς μέσ]σ̣α̣, Διὸς δ’ ἐκ̣ [π]άντα τέτ̣[υκται·] Line 14 associates κεφαλή with ἀρχή. This adds yet one more confirmation that κεφαλή in this saying means ‘source’ and did so prior to Paul.
       Stobaeus, Eclog. 1.23.2 quotes, Ζεὺς κεφαλή, Ζεὺς μέσσα, Διὸς δ’ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται and summarizes at 1.23.6, Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἁπάντων ἀρχιγένεθλος· ‘Zeus himself first author of everything’. LSJ, p. 252 “ἀρχιγένεθλος ‘= ἀρχέγονος’,” LSJ, p. 251, ἀρχέγονος ‘first author or origin’. This also emphasizes Zeus as the source of everything.

       Similarly, Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus [28C] 1:313 line 21 and 23b, quotes, Ζεὺς κεφαλή, Ζεὺς μέσσα, Διὸς τ’ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται. … Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἁπάντων ἀρχιγένεθλος. ‘Zeus himself first author of everything’ once again emphasizes that κεφαλή means “source.” The existence of many citations of this well-attested saying with κεφαλή replaced by ἀρχή—which in context most naturally means “source”—confirms the meaning “source.”’

       All these citations demonstrate that “Zeus the head …” is by far the most commonly cited metaphorical use of κεφαλή near Paul’s time and that κεφαλή in this saying means “source.” W. C. Van Unnik in Sparsa Collecta p. 192 writes that this saying “was extremely well known in Late Antiquity and the New-Platonist Proclus in particular made extensive use of it.”

       Preston wrote, “Kephalē means Zeus is the “beginning” not the “source.” If that were the case, why do so many of these citations explains that as “head” Zeus is the “cause” or “source” of all things? Why does the standard Classical Greek Dictionary, LSJ 945 identify “head” in this saying to mean “generally, source, origin, Ζεὺς κεφαλή (v. l. ἀρχή) … Orph.Fr.21a”? Almost all of these passages refer to Zeus as the source of all things. None of them identify Zeus as the “beginning” of all things. In any event, how is Zeus the “beginning” of any person, place, or thing? Only if “beginning” is understood in the sense of “source” does “beginning” make sense as the meaning of “head” in this saying. But in that case, it is more clear to say “head” here means “source” or “cause” or “creator,” all of which imply that Zeus in the source of all things.

       3. Preston has an unrealistically high count of instances where “head” means “authority.”

       4. Preston does not seem to appreciate how important the evidence from the Septuagint translators almost always avoiding the translation “head” when in the Hebrew Scriptures “head” means “leader.”

       5. Preston appears to think that Greeks in general thought the head was the controlling part of the body. But the Oxford Classical Dictionary describes the idea that the head was the controlling part of the body as a minority view. Paul, in particular, regularly uses “heart” in contexts where we say “mind,” as evident by the RSV translations of Rom 1:21 “senseless minds,” 2 Cor 4:15 “a veil lies over their minds,” and 2 Cor 9:17, “made up his mind.” Paul associated intelligence and control of the body with the heart in such expressions as “their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:21), “stubborn and unrepentant heart” (Rom 2:5), “the law written in their hearts” (Rom 2:15), “do not say in your heart” (Rom 10:6–8), “it is with your heart that you believe” (Rom 10:9–10), “by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts” (Rom 16:18), “no heart has conceived God’s plans” (1 Cor 2:9), “the motives of the heart” (1 Cor4:5),“he who has decided in his own heart” (1 Cor 7:37), “the secrets of the heart will be disclosed” (1 Cor 14:25), “may the eyes of your heart be enlightened to know” (Eph 1:18), “make wise your heart” (Eph 5:19), and “call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim 2:22). The number of passages in Greek literature that refer to the heart guiding the body are vastly greater than passages that refer to the head as guiding the body.

       6. Preston does not seem to have a clear understanding that metaphors usually convey single, not multiple meanings.

       7. Preston does not seem to realize how much of his assertions are dependent on Grudem’s tendentious translations.

       8. Preston does not seem to appreciate how the meaning “chief” emerged as an established meaning for “head” in the Byzantine era (Liddell and Scott’s dictionary) or the medieval era (Dhimitrakou’s dictionary).
       Preston responds, “I agree that “authority over and source of his own essence” is logically confusing. I do think it’s less confusing, though, than your reading it as “source and source of his own essence.”
       Phil Payne responds: I never provided the translation “that he should be the source and source (ἀρχή) of his own essence.” Irenaeus by apposition explains “head” as “source.” The apposition conveys, “that he should be the head (κεφαλή), namely source (ἀρχή) of his own essence.” The most common way in Greek literature of explaining the meaning of a metaphor whose meaning is not clear is to use apposition to explain the meaning the author intends. To do this the writer pairs the metaphor with a word that expresses what the writer intends by the metaphor. In this case, Irenaeus wrote, “that the Demiurge imagined that he created all these things of himself, while in reality he made them in conjunction with the productive power of Achamoth … his mother originated this opinion in his mind, because she desired to bring him forth possessed of such a character that he should be the head (κεφαλή) and source (ἀρχή) of his own essence.” Furthermore, “ruler” does not fit “of his own essence.” What would it mean for the Demiurge to be “ruler of his own essence”? How can anyone be “ruler of his own essence”? “Essence” is what one essentially is. “Essence” is not something that one can “rule.”

       Reply
     • 

       Philip B. Payne on December 1st, 2023 - 3:50am

       Preston’s 4th post interprets Chrysostom to be teaching what Chrysostom emphatically denies at four points:

       1. Preston writes, “Chrysostom is … responding to Arian heretics who say this text shows that the Son is not of the same divine essence as the Father.”

       Chrysostom wrote that the heretics state, “ ‘Nay,’ say they, ‘it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection’.”

       This makes it clear that the heretics state that Christ “is under subjection.” This is what Chrysostom explicitly opposes in this passage. I see nothing in this passage about heretics denying that the Son is “of the same essence as the Father.”

       2. Preston writes, “As far as I can tell, Chrysostom is granting the premise of his opponents, that the relationship between the Father and Son correlates with the husband and the wife.

       Chrysostom wrote, “And who could ever admit this? For if the superiority of the Son compared with us, be the measure of the Father’s compared with the Son, consider to what meanness you will bring Him. So that we must not try all things by like measure in respect of ourselves and of God, though the language used concerning them be similar; but we must assign to God a certain appropriate excellency, and so great as belongs to God. For should they not grant this, many absurdities will follow. As thus; the head of Christ is God: and, Christ is the head of the man, and he of the woman. Therefore if we choose to take the term, head, in the like sense in all the clauses, the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from Him. Nay, and the woman will be as far removed from us as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, this both we are to the Son and the woman again to the man. And who will endure this?
       This makes it clear that Chrysostom repudiates that Paul repudiates (not grants!)” the premise of his opponents, that the relationship between the Father and Son correlates with the husband and the wife.”

       3. Preston writes that Chrysostom “agrees that ‘head’ means ‘authority’.”

       Chrysostom wrote, “For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master.”

       This makes it clear that Chrysostom taught 1 Cor 11:3 does not “speak of rule and subjection.”

       4. Preston writes, “Chrysostom is wrestling with two different understandings of ‘rule and subjection’.”

       Chrysostom wrote, “For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master.”

       Chrysostom’s words “For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have …” are clearly a denial that “Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection.”

       This makes it clear that Chrysostom insists that 1 Cor 11:3 does not “speak of rule and subjection.”

       Chrysostom clearly distinguishes between the submission of the Christ in the flesh from the absence of subordination in the Godhead: “In the first place, when anything lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression.”

       In contrast, Grudem affirms the eternal subordination of the Son. This is what Chrysostom so clearly denies. Chrysostom, like all the church fathers acknowledges the subordination of Jesus in the days of his flesh when he “learned obedience.” What they deny is the eternal subordination of the Son. Chrysostom describes the heretics’ interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3: “as the man governs the wife, says he, so also the Father, Christ. Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. For the head of every man, we read, is Christ.” To this Chrysostom replies: “And who could ever admit this?” Preston, in a way similar to the heretics Chrysostom describes states, “the Son’s submission to the Father” and “the wife’s submission to her husband” “are implied in the use of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3.” As I have shown, Chrysostom describes all three “head” relationships in 1 Cor 11:3 in terms of “source” and repudiates the interpretation that they refer to authority relationships.

       Preston affirms subordination as long as it is not “ontological subordination.” First, this is a distinction that Chrysostom does not make. He repeatedly repudiates that this passage is about “who governs” or “rule” or “subjection.” Second, any necessary or eternal subordination is by definition ontological because what is necessary and eternal is characteristic of one’s being.

       Preston writes, “It seems like you assume that any relationship where one person is in authority over another implies ontological inequality.” No, it is only when one person is necessarily and always in authority over another that there is ontological inequality. Chrysostom repudiates this understanding of the Son by affirming the Son to be “free, yielding obedience and giving counsel. For the counsellor is no slave.” “Yielding obedience” refers to voluntary submission, not necessary submission.

       Reply
7. 

   Philip B. Payne on November 18th, 2023 - 8:30pm

   Preston writes regarding Homily 20 on Ephesians, Chrysostom understands “head” to mean “the saving health of the body,” which, it seems, includes some sense of “authority” as the rest of the section suggests. In fact, the only thing Chrysostom states here regarding the meaning of head is, “the head is the saving health of the body.” The comments regarding authority Chrysostom explicitly draws from what “He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife.” Chrysostom’s explanation of head is drawn directly from Paul’s apposition “Christ the head of the church, he the savior of the body.” Paul did not write, “Christ the head of the church, he the authority over the body” or “he the Lord of the body.”

   Preston writes that Tertullian, Marc. 5 8 (in Latin not Greek): “‘The head of every man is Christ’. What Christ, if he is not the author of man? The head here he has put for authority, now “authority” will accrue to none else than the ‘author’.”
   The explanation of “Christ the caput of man” as “the author of man” surely refers to “source.” Since this is a reference to active creative source, it naturally conveys the “authority” of the Creator. Hence the comment, “now ‘authority’ will accrue to none else than the ‘author’.”

   In spite of the Latin word caput (head) often meaning leader, unlike κεφαλή (for which “leader” was not a common or established meaning), Latin fathers like “Ambrosiaster” (c. 375) also interpreted head in 1 Cor 11:3 as source: “God is the head of Christ because he begat him; Christ is the head of the man because he created him, and the man is the head of the woman because she was taken from his side.” CSEL 81.120–21. Translation from Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VII 1–2 Corinthians (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 104.

   Preston is to be commended for acknowledging, “I think we should be sensitive to the early church’s view of women, which did not always affirm their full (social or ontological) equality.”

   Preston is also to be commended for cautioning us to “temper how much weight we put on the fathers in understanding the New Testament’s radically high view of women in the face of a profoundly misogynistic culture (both Greco-Roman and Jewish.”

   Regarding the meaning of “head” in 1 Cor 11:3, I argue that the predominant interpretation by church fathers is that all three instances of “head” mean “source.” Not only is this true of both of Cyril of Alexandria’s two detailed explanations and the Macrostich Creed, it is also true of Theodore of Mopsuestia, two passages by Athanasius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus catech. 11.14, Eusebius Eccl. Theol. 1.11.2–3, Photius, Chrysostom, and in Latin, Ambrosiaster. Even when head is explained to convey authority, both Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 4:8 (ANF 2, 420), “for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man” and Tertullian (in Latin, “What Christ, if he is not the author of man?”) explain it as referring to source.

   Reply
   • 

     Preston Sprinkle on November 20th, 2023 - 8:31pm

     Regarding Chrysostom’s Homily 20 on Ephesians, the full context reads:

     “For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then the Church, that is, both husbands and wives, is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.”

     I’m happy letting the reader decide if they think Chrysostom understands kephale to convey no sense of authority in this passage.

     You write: “Regarding the meaning of “head” in 1 Cor 11:3, I argue that the predominant interpretation by church fathers is that all three instances of “head” mean “source.” Not only is this true of both of Cyril of Alexandria’s two detailed explanations and the Macrostich Creed, it is also true of Theodore of Mopsuestia, two passages by Athanasius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus catech. 11.14, Eusebius Eccl. Theol. 1.11.2–3, Photius, Chrysostom, and in Latin, Ambrosiaster. Even when head is explained to convey authority, both Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 4:8 (ANF 2, 420), “for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man” and Tertullian (in Latin, “What Christ, if he is not the author of man?”) explain it as referring to source.”

     Again, so as not to simply repeat what I already said, I agree with you on Cyril of Alexandria, but believe the rest of these examples are either not as clear as you think they are, or I think you’re reading is wrong. And isn’t “the Macrostich Creed” one of “the two passages by Athanasius?” At least in your latest book you sent me, you cite 2 passages from Athanasius and ONE OF THEM is from the Macrostich Creed. Yet here you cite the Macrostich Creed IN ADDITION TO the 2 passages in Athanasius.

     As pointed out earlier, I don’t think Photius is a good example of a church father, nor do I think you have factored in the later part of the quote from Photius that you left off.

     I agree here with your reading of Clement of A. where he refers to head as “source” in a way that ALSO conveys authority. I thought you disagreed with this earlier.

     There are several other passages in the fathers where kephale seems to mean “authority over, leader” which I mention in my post, which your paragraph does not mention.

     Reply
     • 

       Philip B. Payne on December 1st, 2023 - 9:10pm

       Preston writes, “Again, so as not to simply repeat what I already said, I agree with you on Cyril of Alexandria, but believe the rest of these examples are either not as clear as you think they are, or I think you’re reading is wrong. And isn’t “the Macrostich Creed” one of “the two passages by Athanasius?” At least in your latest book you sent me, you cite 2 passages from Athanasius and ONE OF THEM is from the Macrostich Creed. Yet here you cite the Macrostich Creed IN ADDITION TO the 2 passages in Athanasius.”

       Phil Payne responds:

       Earlier Preston wrote, “We do see at least one writer (e.g. Cyril of Alexandria) and apparently one creed (The Macrostich Creed) which understands kephalē to mean “source” without any clear notions of “authority,” while others understand kephalē to mean “source” but as grounds for “authority” (Clement of Alexandria; Theodore of Mopsuestia).”

       I agree that when “head” means “source” in the sense of creator, namely in “Christ is the head of every man” that it is reasonable to assume that, as creative source, Christ has authority over what he created. As in this use of “head,” so also in the other two uses of “head” in 1 Cor 11:3, each of the sources I cite do in fact explain “head” to mean “source.” They, with the possible exception of Clement of Alexandria, do not explain “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 to mean “authority.” It is an entirely different question whether the authors believed that husbands have authority over their wives, because 1 Cor 11:3 is not about husbands but “man.”

       I have provided extensive exegetical evidence that church fathers overwhelmingly interpreted all three uses of “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 to mean “source.” I have not seen compelling evidence from Preston that any church father explained that “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 means “authority” and not “source.” If Preston does not find the reasons I have provided for “head” meaning “source” in any of these instances to be clear or persuasive, he should explain why those reasons are not clear or persuasive. It is not sufficient to say that the author elsewhere says that women are inferior or that husbands have authority over their wives since this passage is not about husbands and wives.

       Preston should add to his list of church fathers who explain that “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 means “source”:

       Athanasius (ca. 296–373) quotes the Arian Symb. Sirm. 1 anath. 26 (PG 26:740B), “For the head [κεφαλή], which is the source [ἀρχή] of all things, is the Son; and the head [κεφαλή], which is the source [ἀρχή] of Christ is God; for thus we reverently lift up all things to the One without beginning, the source [ἀρχή] of everything that exists through the Son [1 Cor 8:6].”

       Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon 235 lists ἀρχή in both this Athanasius passage and the following Eusebius passage above under ‘First Cause, Creator’, a subheading under “beginning, source, principle.” Just because ἀρχή can mean other things in different contexts does not mean that the meaning “source” is not clear for the reasons I listed in the passages I cited:

       Eusebius (ca. 265–339), Eccl. Theol. 1.11.2–3 explains that Christ is “the originator (ἀρχηγός) and head (κεφαλή) of the church, and the Father of him” and confirms that he is using κεφαλή to mean creative source by stating that the Father is the “cause [αἴτιος]” of Christ and by pairing “source [ἀρχή] and head [κεφαλή].”

       Even though the Latin word for “head” (caput) commonly means leader, unlike the Greek word κεφαλή, Latin fathers like “Ambrosiaster” (c. 375) also interpreted “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 as “source”: “God is the head of Christ because he begat him; Christ is the head of the man because he created him, and the man is the head of the woman because she was taken from his side.” CSEL 81.120–21. Translation from Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VII 1–2 Corinthians (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 104.

       If Preston wants to cover a wider range of church fathers who explain the meaning of “head” in 1 Cor 11:3, he should also add:

       Cosmas Indicopleustes, (sixth century) Topographia Christiana 5.209 (PG 88:224A): “For just as Adam is head (κεφαλή) of all people in this world, because he is their cause (αἴτιος) and father, in this way also is the Lord Christ according to the flesh head (κεφαλή) of the church and the father of the age to come.”

       Photius (ninth century): “For Christ is the head (κεφαλή) of us who believe … being made by him … But the head (κεφαλή) of Christ is the Father, as begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς) and of like substance with him. And the head (κεφαλή) of the woman is the man because he is her begetter (γεννητής) and originator (προβολεύς) and of like substance with her.”

       It is possible that I missed something, but I did not find a single citation by Preston from any church father who explains that “head” in its three uses in 1 Cor 11:3 means “authority” but not “source.” I think, therefore, that Preston’s conclusion should at least include that statements from church fathers overwhelmingly explain “head” in 1 Cor 11:3 as “source.”

       Preston writes, “isn’t ‘the Macrostich Creed’ one of “the two passages by Athanasius?”

       Phil Payne responds. No, the “Macostich Creed” is an Arian Confession. The “Macrostich” Arian Confession was a different document than its citation by Athanasius. I doubt that any historian would contest this or doubt that this confession was quoted by Athanasius, whether that Arian Confession survives in whole or in part independent from citations in church fathers.

       Reply
8. 

   Joseph B. on November 20th, 2023 - 4:53pm

   Preston, I think you are concentrating too much on one word and neglecting the context in which it is being used. The CONTEXT doesn’t indicate the translation “source”. You could read it that way figuratively, as your examples seem to do in the service of making some other tangentially related point, but generally if Paul meant source it confuses the point of the surrounding text. Clearly he was referring to social roles.
   1Cor.11
   [1] Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
   [2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
   [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
   [4] Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
   [5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head were shaven.
   [6] For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
   [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
   [8] (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
   [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)
   [10] That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.
   [11] (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
   [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)
   [13] Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
   [14] Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
   [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
   [16] If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

   Reply
   • 

     Preston Sprinkle on November 20th, 2023 - 6:46pm

     Thanks Joseph. I don’t think I’m neglecting the CONTEXT. I just haven’t gotten there yet. I plan on writing future posts on the use of kephale in the context of Eph 5 and 1 Cor 11.

     Reply
9. 

   Andrew Bartlett on December 20th, 2023 - 8:32pm

   Hi Preston, Something has been nagging away at me since I read your Part 4 blog on ‘head’.
   I noticed that you quote at length the 1889 translation of Chrysostom. When I wrote my book, I consulted the same translation, since it is easily accessible online.
   However, I should mention that more recently, on the two occasions when I have actually taken the trouble to check the translation against Chrysostom’s Greek, on a point concerning men and women, the translation was unsatisfactory in both cases. In one case it was unclear, which obscured an important point. In the other case it was plain wrong and misleading. Taking a charitable view, one could surmise that the nineteenth-century translators, because of certain fixed views on what ought to be the case in regard to women’s subjection, were unable to grasp accurately what they were translating. (I suppose the alternative would be that the translators had an agenda, which differed from Chrysostom’s agenda, but I’m not advancing that theory.)
   You probably know this already, but the Greek is easy to access on a site called fourthcentury.com.

   Reply
10. 

    Laurie E Young on January 16th, 2024 - 9:20pm

    What I tend to believe is that after researching the meaning of Kephale, It would mean “Source” according to Ancient Hebrew.
    God is the source of Jesus, Jesus is the source of man, And man is the source of woman. God is always prominent. Men and women are equal, but women came from a mans rib, which also means “side” helper. equal.
    .

    Reply
    • 

      PC1 on March 7th, 2024 - 11:30pm

      Indeed. And the word used for ‘helper’ sometimes referred to God Himself! You have probably read Andrew Bartlett’s book, but just in case you havent, I highly recommend it.

      Reply