Intellectuelle

I like what you are saying and I hope you repudiate the obnoxious notion that the statement that the "head is the divinest part and controls the body" is somehow anything other than tasteless and abusive as a comparison to headship in marriage.

The comment on gender blog about the Republic really knocked me off because there is an old guy at the beginning who is a resident alien in Athens and an arms producer. He has three sons. He engages in a discussion about old age and then he says he has to go and offer sacrifices. His name is Cephalus, which is derived from the word kephale in Greek.

But here is the thing - he is a real historic personage and that is his real name. He is not a religious authority of anything at all. Some philosopher has suggested that because he is old and traditional and still worships the old Greek gods, he is the character in the dialogue who represents the theme of 'religious authority.' But, that post was not representative of what the word means. It could also mean that he was the father of the clan. It could mean he began the dialogue.

However, this is the main point. Cephalus was a real person and that is his real name. So the post really misrepresented the use of the word in Plato.

I know this debate is not worth my time. Did you read my last post? I have given up being intellectual. All I care about is that the least number of people get hurt.

I do think you are doing a good job, Bonnie, in arguing your points. But you don't need to concede that kephale means religious authority in Plato.

there is my url.

Well said, as usual. I haven't always measured up to my part of this, I fear.

Very clear thinking, especially for one who might *feel* "a bit discombobulated". Underlining the mutuality of the submission is key, and I appreciate the way you have honed in on the fundamentals involved.

I think we are starting to get somewhere in establishing a workable understanding of these scriptures and the New Testament concept of authority as a whole.

What Dr. Reynolds said was not that "headship" cannot mean "source" or "origin," but that kephale as used by Paul cannot be said to definitely not mean "authority." My apologies for the misrepresentation.]

So Reynolds is guessing, Grudem is guessing, I am guessing and you are guessing. None of us is working from the meaning of the word kephale because we all acknowledge that a variety of meanings are available. Actually, I have read almost all Grudem's citations in context, within the broader Greek text, so at least I have something to go on. Here is an example,

This is Grudem's best piece of evidence,

the king of Egypt is called "head" of the nation

But this is what he is quoting, presumably,

"and, in a word, the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings." Philo Moses 2:30

Head then means that Philadelphus was the most famous of all the kings in his family before and after him. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with authority.

Suzanne,

In Appendix 1 Part C of RBMW, Grudem's argument against "source" as a meaning of kephale is that he is not the source of his wife, nor is any husband the source of his (the husband's) wife, stated with exclamation. He does not mention the fact that man is, indeed, the source of woman according to Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is referenced both in Ephesians 5 (Gen 2:24) and I Cor. 11.

I would substitute his use of "source" in his statement about Christ being the source of the husband and the husband being the source of the wife with the word "supplier," or, if one would rather not apply either of those meanings to Eph. 5:23 or I Cor. 11:3, it certainly seems plausible to do so with Colossians 1:18 ("source" or "origin"), Col. 2:19, and Eph. 4:16. Grudem does not mention these verses.

He does not explain the fact that Col. 1:18 reads: He [Christ] is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.

Neither does he mention that, according to John 1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things came into being by Him." Sounds like "origin" or "source" to me.

Further, he does not allow that kephale in Col. 2:19 and Eph. 4:16 may indeed indicate the anatomical head, as parts of the body (in reference to His body, the church), including joints and ligaments, are also mentioned. This would further (sorry) flesh out the meaning of kephale in these passages in reference to Christ.

Thanks for responding, Bonnie. I think that since woman is the mother it is incredibly important to respect the man as the father or the origin. It is about mutual respect for each other as life givers. It is a very pro-life interpretation because it acknowledges the father's role. What it does not do is make the male the leader, the one who has to have more wisdom, and make the decisions and set out goals for the wife. They are both equal as thinkers, as Christians who respond to God's call. The husband must treat the wife as a full equal, a fellow Christian. You would not see that in all the rhetoric about men ruling that comes up in some contexts.

Ms. McCarehy:
Phildelphus -sister lover, married to his sister, among others.
Sincerely,J R Dittbrenner

Yeah, I know he married his sister, Arsinoe, he was king of Egypt after all. Are you suggesting that that is the reason that Grudem would not cite his sources? Grudem just called him the king of Egypt. Hmm. Trying to make him seem more dignified, I guess.