Symbolic usage of 'head' in the New Testament

[Neto]

The questions posed in the thread “Should a woman have a spiritual head other than Jesus?” provoked more thought on this, and in an attempt to answer the question last directed to me personally, I dug deeper into this, and looking closer at the text, my understanding of the symbolic meaning of ‘head’ in I Cor 11:3 has been evolving. As I looked at that text, it got me to thinking about how other NT texts might line up with the interpretation of ‘head’ as meaning ‘source, source of life”. In that thread I pointed out (following G. Fee’s commentary) that the context there demonstrates that Christ as creator of man, and man as the origin of woman, does seem to indicate that the symbolic meaning of ‘head’ probably does not have hierarchy of authority or command in view.

[Please see the next post in this topic if you would like to read his actual words. Otherwise, you may skip reading it.]

I looked for other uses of the word ‘head’ and most are literal, as are also some of the uses of the word in 1 Cor 11. The one exception that leaps out is Col 1:18, where the Scripture states that “Christ is the head of the body, the church”. What is striking when these two texts are compared, is that creation order is in the context in both cases.

[Note: My third post will be a quotation of the notes on Colossians 1:18, from a work compiled by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, sister organization to Wycliffe Bible Translators. Read through it if you like, or you may skip it.]

So if Christ as the head of the congregation of God is to be understood in some way other than that he is the authority that rules the works of the body, then what would be the meaning of this phrase if ‘source’ is in mind, and not authority structure? It seems to me that the emphasis is then that Christ is the fountain of life in the Church, his followers. (One might also add that a creator has automatic authority over his creation, but this does not seem to be the central thought.) My current understanding is that Christ as ‘head’ of the Church is especially meaningful, because it tells me that Christ provides life to his body, the Church, and thus it cannot fail, because the Source of Life possesses unfathomable life giving power.

[Neto]

From 1 Cor 11:3 Gordon Fee commentary

What is not immediately clear, especially to the English reader, is the sense of the metaphor “head,” and thus the nature of the relationships that each of the clauses intends.
It should be noted that this theological statement is not something Paul sets out to prove; nor is it the main point of the section. Indeed, after the references to “every man” and “every woman” shaming their “heads” in vv. 4-5, there is no further direct reference to it. {footnote: The statement in vs 8, repeated in vs 12,that "woman is from man", is very likely an oblique reference to vs 3. Verse 7 is often viewed in this way, but with a strange turn of logic that says: (1) Christ is the head of (= authority over) man because (2) man was created in God's image and for God's glory. That seems obtuse at best since man is said to be God's image and glory, not Christ's, and the concept of "authority" does not appear in vs 7.} Moreover, the first two items (man/Christ, woman/man) appear in that same sequence in vv. 4-5, where Paul takes up the problem itself. This suggests that even though this theologoumenon appears as the first item in the argument, the behavioral problem itself really came first, and that that problem, having to do with women's heads, dictated both the fact and the form of the appearance of this construct. Paul seems concerned to shift the problem from one of individual freedom to one of relational responsibility. The problem lay squarely on the women's heads, but it was affecting male/female relationships in the present age. By making their appearance such that it tended to eliminate distinctions between the sexes, they were bringing shame on that relationship, which had not yet been abrogated even though the new age had been inaugurated.
The metaphor itself is often understood to be hierarchical, setting up structures of authority. But nothing in the passage suggests as much; in fact, the only appearance of the word exousia (“authority”) refers to the woman's own authority (v. 10). Moreover, vv. 11-12 explicitly qualify vv. 8-9 so that they will not be understood in this way. Indeed, the metaphorical use of kephalei (“head”) to mean “chief” or “the person of the highest rank” is rare in Greek literature {footnote: …this was first brought to the attention of the scholarly world by S. Bedale, "The meaning of kephalei in the Pauline Epistles," JTS 5 (1954), 211-15, who states the problem concisely: In normal Greek usage, classical or contemporary, kephalei does not signify 'head' in the sense of ruler, or chieftain, of a community. ....} — so much so that even though the Hebrew word rosh often carried this sense, the Greek translators of the LXX, who ordinarily used kepalei to translate rosh when the physical “head” was intended, almost never did so when “ruler” was intended, thus indicating that this metaphorical sense is an exceptional usage and not part of the ordinary range of meanings for the Greek word.
Paul's understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is “head” as “source,” especially “source of life.” This seems to be corroborated by vv. 8-9, the only place where one of these relationships is picked up further in Paul's argument. There he explicitly states that man was the original source of the woman (cf. v. 12). Thus Paul's concern is not hierarchical (who has authority over whom), but relational (the unique relationships that are predicated on one's being the source of the other's existence). Indeed, he says nothing about man's authority; his concern is with the woman's being man's glory, the one without whom he is not complete (vv. 7c-9). To blur that relationship is to bring shame on her “head.” This means that the middle clause, “the man is the head of woman,” refers to the creation account also alluded to in vv. 8 and 12. “The man” would refer to Adam, and “the woman” to Eve; thus, “the man is the source of the woman's life.” But as v. 12 makes plain, that is only part of the story; in a much more significant way, “all things,” both man and woman, “come from God.”
If this is the meaning of the middle line, and the rest of the context seems to demand such a conclusion, then what about the first and third lines? The first is the more difficult. There are two viable options: (1) In terms of creation, Christ is the source of every man's life; (2) In terms of the new creation, Christ is the source of every Christian man. In favor of the first option are: (a) the possibility that the three clauses are thus chronological — Christ created man; through man came woman; God is the source of Christ in his incarnation; (b) the fact that elsewhere in Paul Christ is viewed as the one through whom all things came to be; (c) this makes good sense of the adjective “every” — through creation he is thus the ultimate source of every man; (d) the reference in v. 7 to man's being God's image and glory also refers to the creation narrative (cf. v. 12).
In favor of the second option are: (a) Paul's explicit statement in 2 Cor. 5:17 that the “new creation” is the result of one's being “in Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:30); (b) in Col. 1:18 Paul refers to Christ as the “head” of his body, the church, in a context that implies he is the source of its being; (c) when he picks up this clause in v. 4 he repeats “every man” in a context that refers not to “man” in general, but to believing men in the Christian assembly. On the whole, this seems to be the more likely option. The major objection to this view, besides the language “every man,” is that Christ in this sense is also the “head” of every Christian woman. But that is to make too much of the statement as an isolated theologoumenon, which it is not. Paul, after all, is not trying to give a theological compendium; this is an ad hoc construct, aimed specifically at what he will say in v. 4. Thus the unique relationship that the Christian man has to Christ as the source of his being disallows him to “have hanging down the head” while praying and prophesying; otherwise he brings shame upon Christ, who gave him life.
This suggests, then, that the final clause, “God is the kephalei of Christ,” is not a christological statement in the ontological sense; that is, Paul is hardly thinking of the “eternal generation” of the Son from the Father. Rather, it refers to the incarnational work of Christ. God is the source of Christ, who through his redemption became the source of “every man.” For the argument that follows, the first two items are all that are necessary; however, in a way reminiscent of 3:22-23, Paul is not content merely to assert the first two relationships, but presses back to the ultimate source of all things, God himself (cf. also 15:22-28). Christ is the “head” of every believing man because lying behind all things is the eternal God, “from whom are all things” (cf. v. 12). With that proper theological point of reference, Paul will now proceed to explain why the women must not be “uncovered” when they pray and prophesy.

[Neto]

Exegetical Summary Col 1:18
(NOTE: The Exegetical Summaries are a work put together by Summer Institute of Linguistics, and is designed to inform the Bible translator as to the varying views expressed in a large number of different commentaries, which are indicated by abbreviations of the names of these works. The numbering represents different interpretations, but does not prioritize or favor any viewpoint over another.)

QUESTION—What is meant by the metaphor ‘the head of the body’?
The head refers to Christ and the body refers to the church. Believers are joined together in a group, the church, and have distinct functions within the group as parts of a body have distinct functions [LN].
Both a body and the church are living organisms [EGT, Mou, TH, WBC],
made up of members who are united to each other [EGT, TH],
each one having their place to fill and their work to do, and all of them dependent on each other and on the head [EGT].
1. The head has authority over the body [Herm, Lg, LN, Mou, Mrt, My, SSA, TH].
The head means ‘one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over’ [LN].
It means one who rules [Herm, Lg, Mrt, My, SSA, TH],
one who is supreme [Mou].
2. The head directs the body and gives life to the body [EGT, Ln, Lt, NIC, NTC, WBC],
and also power [Ln, NIC, WBC]
and growth [NTC].
The body finds its unity in the head and is sustained by the head [Lt].
It owes its origin to the head [Lt].

[Bootstrap]

Exegetical Summary Col 1:18
(NOTE: The Exegetical Summaries are a work put together by Summer Institute of Linguistics, and is designed to inform the Bible translator as to the varying views expressed in a large number of different commentaries, which are indicated by abbreviations of the names of these works. The numbering represents different interpretations, but does not prioritize or favor any viewpoint over another.)

They are an amazingly useful resource normally available only to translators on a registered project. Alas, they cost over $600 to get from Logos ...

[MaxPC]

Exegetical Summary Col 1:18
(NOTE: The Exegetical Summaries are a work put together by Summer Institute of Linguistics, and is designed to inform the Bible translator as to the varying views expressed in a large number of different commentaries, which are indicated by abbreviations of the names of these works. The numbering represents different interpretations, but does not prioritize or favor any viewpoint over another.)

QUESTION—What is meant by the metaphor ‘the head of the body’?
The head refers to Christ and the body refers to the church. Believers are joined together in a group, the church, and have distinct functions within the group as parts of a body have distinct functions [LN].
Both a body and the church are living organisms [EGT, Mou, TH, WBC],
made up of members who are united to each other [EGT, TH],
each one having their place to fill and their work to do, and all of them dependent on each other and on the head [EGT].
1. The head has authority over the body [Herm, Lg, LN, Mou, Mrt, My, SSA, TH].
The head means ‘one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over’ [LN].
It means one who rules [Herm, Lg, Mrt, My, SSA, TH],
one who is supreme [Mou].
2. The head directs the body and gives life to the body [EGT, Ln, Lt, NIC, NTC, WBC],
and also power [Ln, NIC, WBC]
and growth [NTC].
The body finds its unity in the head and is sustained by the head [Lt].
It owes its origin to the head [Lt].

Neto, these posts are very informative. Thank you and I especially appreciate your citations of the sources as well.

[Bootstrap]

They are an amazingly useful resource normally available only to translators on a registered project. Alas, they cost over $600 to get from Logos ...

I was wrong.

I still think that's true for the electronic edition, but they are also published in paperback:

https://www.sil.org/series/exegetical-summary-series

I sometimes ask a friend to share excerpts since I do not have this.

[Neto]

They are an amazingly useful resource normally available only to translators on a registered project. Alas, they cost over $600 to get from Logos ...

I was wrong.

I still think that's true for the electronic edition, but they are also published in paperback:

https://www.sil.org/series/exegetical-summary-series

I sometimes ask a friend to share excerpts since I do not have this.

There was also an earlier series, called the Exegetical Helps. They were published as they were completed, and SIL members could subscribe. We never did, because so many of them had already been published by the time we arrive on the field, and I managed to put together a nearly complete set from older members who were retiring. Some books were printed in sections, like Acts, which is in three volumes. I never did get quite all of them. Later they started scanning them, and adding this older work into the Translators' Workplace program. I don't know which book was printed first, but I think they were initially produced by the Mexico Branch (the oldest SIL branch). Hebrews, for instance, was printed in 1975, in Mexico. Actually, I think they were all in print before I started actual translation work, in 1990. The focus was already changing toward discourse structure analysis when I was in Translation courses in 1980 & 82. (I don't think TW is being used at all anymore, because as I recall, the computer language it was written in was changed just around the time we left the field, in 2003. We were members for around two years after that, but didn't upgrade to the new program, because of the cost. TW does not display properly in Windows 7, although it does run in the 32-bit version. I keep an XP machine around, partly just to be able to use this program. At that time we expected to eventually return to the field, but it didn't turn out that way.)

[Neto]

Thanks for the comments so far, but the topic.... I would like to receive a peer review of what I've suggested (perhaps not too openly) this may mean for the "doctrine" called "headship". (You might say that if this interpretation is correct, it may just turn "headship" on its, well, on its head.)

I mentioned (in the other thread) that I had followed the other interpretation when I did the rough draft of I Corinthians. Authority in Banawa culture is most clearly expressed in terms of ownership, so my reading says, in fact, "and the woman's owner is her own husband". That sounds really strong to me now, and perhaps a better way could be found to express this same interpretation. (This was just my own rough draft, which means that I had never been able to check it with any native speakers, nor was it subjected to the consultant & comprehension checks, which follow those initial checks for grammatical accuracy.)

Fee states that Paul was not trying to prove his statement about man being the head of woman, but rather that he was using it as a statement about creation order to support his main discussion about the importance of the veiling for the woman, and the uncovered head for the man. In contrast to this interpretation, the conservative Mennonite interpretation makes it the central teaching point, and regards the veiling & uncovered head as an out-working of it. (Rather opposite in terms of focus & importance, it seems to me.)

I talked with my wife about this before I started this thread, and she said that this "headship" doctrine came from Bill Gothard. I am not saying that in order to discredit this belief, but just to ask if others here can say with certainty that it was taught before the Basic Youth Conflicts seminars became popular among conservative Mennonites. (My wife grew up in the Beachy AM church from the age of 12 on, and attended BYC in around 1971. I think I had heard of it, but didn't attend myself until 1975, but I didn't grow up in the conservative Mennonite setting, either.) So what was taught about this before Gothard, and his "the man is the umbrella for his family" teaching?

It could be that Gordan Fee is somewhat of a "women's libber", I don't know. I suppose most modern commentators are Eglatarians, not Complementarians. But that is also not to be our criteria for interpretation of the Scripture, or for accepting or rejecting a commentator's work. Belief must follow Scripture, not the other way around.

So what think ye?

[Neto]

Thanks for the comments so far, but the topic.... I would like to receive a peer review of what I've suggested (perhaps not too openly) this may mean for the "doctrine" called "headship". (You might say that if this interpretation is correct, it may just turn "headship" on its, well, on its head.)

I mentioned (in the other thread) that I had followed the other interpretation when I did the rough draft of I Corinthians. Authority in Banawa culture is most clearly expressed in terms of ownership, so my reading says, in fact, "and the woman's owner is her own husband". That sounds really strong to me now, and perhaps a better way could be found to express this same interpretation. (This was just my own rough draft, which means that I had never been able to check it with any native speakers, nor was it subjected to the consultant & comprehension checks, which follow those initial checks for grammatical accuracy.)

Fee states that Paul was not trying to prove his statement about man being the head of woman, but rather that he was using it as a statement about creation order to support his main discussion about the importance of the veiling for the woman, and the uncovered head for the man. In contrast to this interpretation, the conservative Mennonite interpretation makes it the central teaching point, and regards the veiling & uncovered head as an out-working of it. (Rather opposite in terms of focus & importance, it seems to me.)

I talked with my wife about this before I started this thread, and she said that this "headship" doctrine came from Bill Gothard. I am not saying that in order to discredit this belief, but just to ask if others here can say with certainty that it was taught before the Basic Youth Conflicts seminars became popular among conservative Mennonites. (My wife grew up in the Beachy AM church from the age of 12 on, and attended BYC in around 1971. I think I had heard of it, but didn't attend myself until 1975, but I didn't grow up in the conservative Mennonite setting, either.) So what was taught about this before Gothard, and his "the man is the umbrella for his family" teaching?

It could be that Gordan Fee is somewhat of a "women's libber", I don't know. I suppose most modern commentators are Eglatarians, not Complementarians. But that is also not to be our criteria for interpretation of the Scripture, or for accepting or rejecting a commentator's work. Belief must follow Scripture, not the other way around.

So what think ye?

[MaxPC]

I suppose most modern commentators are Eglatarians, not Complementarians. But that is also not to be our criteria for interpretation of the Scripture, or for accepting or rejecting a commentator's work. Belief must follow Scripture, not the other way around.

So what think ye?

Essentially, our perspective is complementarian, that is to say, women and men are ontologically equal but are different, functionally speaking.
YMMV