meaning of (kephale) ("head"): An evaluation of new evidence, real and alleged, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2001 by Grudem, Wayne

Bell & Howell Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted.

The purpose of this article is to examine recent treatments of the meaning of the word (. . .) ("head") as it pertains to certain passages in the NT,1 focusing especially on new evidence cited by Catherine Kroeger in her article "Head" in the widely-used Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.2 Concerns will also be raised about the level of care and accuracy with which evidence has been quoted in this reference book. In addition, some new patristic evidence on (. . .) will be cited. Finally, the article will also present new evaluations of the entry on (. . .) in the Liddell-Scott lexicon from the editor of the Supplement to this lexicon and from another lexicographer who worked on this Supplement.

I. THE STRIKING QUOTATION FROM CHRYSOSTOM

When Dr. Kroeger's article appeared in 1993, it offered citations of a number of new references for the term (. . .) and argued from these that (. . .) primarily meant "source," not "authority over," and that it had that meaning not only at the time of the NT but also in the preceding classical period and in the subsequent patristic period in Greek literature. The most striking quotation in Dr. Kroeger's article was a statement from John Chrysostom (AD 344/354-407), which, if accurate, would appear to settle any dispute over whether (. . .) meant "source" or "authority over," at least in the Christian world of the fourth century. Kroeger writes,

In view of Scripture ascribing coequality of Christ with the Father (Jn. 1:1-3; 10:30; 14:9, 11; 16:15; 17:11, 21), John Chrysostom declared that only a heretic would understand Paul's use of "head" to mean "chief" or "authority over." Rather one should understand the term as implying "absolute oneness and cause and primal source" (PG 61.214, 216).3

But is this what Chrysostom said? Kroeger claims (1) that Chrysostom is making a statement about the meaning of (. . .); (2) that Chrysostom denies that (. . .) can mean "chief" or "authority over"; and (3) that Chrysostom says that only a heretic would understand the word in that way.

Here is the quotation from Chrysostom:

"But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if "the man be the head of the woman," and the head be of the same substance with the body, and "the head of Christ is God," the Son is of the same substance with the Father (...).4

This is not a statement about the meaning of (. . .). Chrysostom is opposing the views of the Arians, who denied the deity of Christ. They did this by pointing to the statement, "the head of Christ is God" (in 1 Cor 11:3), and saying that therefore the Son is a lesser being, not fully divine and not equal to the father in essence. Chrysostom counters their claim, but in doing so he does not say anything about the meaning of the word (. . .) or say that only a "heretic" would take it to mean "chief" or "authority over" as Kroeger claims. Rather, from the idea that a head is "of the same substance (. . . .) with the body," he affirms that the Son is "of the same substance (. . .) with the Father." There is no statement here saying that he disagrees with the Arians over the meaning of (. . .).

What comes next? In the following lines, Chrysostom says the "heretics" will counter by saying that the Son is subject to the Father and therefore a lesser being:

"Nay," say they, "it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection" (. . . . . .).5

If Chrysostom had ever wanted to say that "head" could not mean "one in authority," here was the perfect opportunity. He could have answered these "heretics" by saying, as Dr. Kroeger apparently would like him to say, that (. . .) did not mean "one in authority," and that "only a heretic would understand Paul's use of 'head' to mean 'chief' or `authority over." But Chrysostom does not say this at all. Rather, he assumes that (. . .) does mean "authority over," because he agrees that the Son is obedient to the Father, and then he goes on to show that his obedience is not servile, like a slave, but free, like that of a wife who is equal in honor. Here are his words:

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 as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than we find in men towards the authors of their being, so also his liberty is greater .... we ought to admire the Father also, that He begat such as son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience and giving counsel. For the counselor is no slave .... For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected (. . .) to the man ... 6

So is there any statement here about the meaning of (. . .)? No, except the implication in the context that if the Father is the "head" of the Son, the Son is obedient to the Father. Chrysostom here does not deny that "head" means "one in authority," but assumes that "head" does mean this, and explains what kind of authority that is with respect to the husband and with respect to God the Father.