Because the Bible doesn't say God gave the man authority, somehow the idea of authority had to be added. By changing the meaning of select words, the man was given authority over the woman.
Fallacy # 2: Kephale
To support the changes, Grudem looks for evidence in the early church that the word "head" gives the man authority over the woman.
Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Grudem: p 425
Robertson McQuilkin writes in Understanding and Applying the Bible, “Translations, in a sense, are commentaries on the meaning of the text inasmuch as it is impossible to translate without doing some interpreting.”[1] While a translator cannot avoid some interpreting, Professor Alter considers explaining the text a common error in modern translations.
The
unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English translations of the Bible
is the use of translations as a vehicle for explaining the Bible instead of
representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this
amounts to explaining away the Bible. This impulse may be attributed not only
to a rather reduced sense of the philological enterprise but also to a feeling
that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to made accessible –
indeed, transparent – to all.[2]
A good example of a translation, which explains the text more than it
should, is Kenneth Taylor’s paraphrase, The Living Bible. Taylor’s paraphrase was criticized for being
too interpretative, and although it cannot be used to discern the literal
meaning of the Bible, it is useful as a description of what the church believes
the Bible says. The Living Bible is decidedly androcentric - the woman’s entire
existence revolves around serving and obeying the man, who should love his wife
as a service to himself.[3]
In The
Living Bible, kephale (“head”) is
translated ruler in Colossians 2:10
and leader in Ephesians 5:22-23. Wayne
Grudem agrees with Taylor’s
translation of kephale, for he claims
that “Christians throughout history usually have understood the word head in these verses [1 Cor. 11, Eph. 5]
to mean “authority over.”[4]
However, the evidence Grudem provides is questionable. He considers the
Apostolic Fathers to be “extremely valuable for understanding New Testament
usage, because of the proximity in time, culture, and subject matter,” but he
gives only one example, the Shepherd of Hermas, in which the phrase kephalee tou oikou (“head of household”)
is found (Similitudes 7:3). The phrase is a curious one because it refers to a
husband, but the proper Greek terms for the master of the household were oikodespoteo and kurios. Neither is the phrase found in the Bible, as kephale is never connected to oikos (“household”). Hebrew uses ro’sh beeyt for “head of the household,”
which becomes kephalee tou oikou when
translated literally into Greek. However, it is not a proper Greek term and is
never found in the Septuagint. Therefore, it is likely that the writer was a
Hebrew Christian who did not use the proper idiom when writing the text in
Greek.
Grudem writes also that Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian gave kephale the meaning “authority” but he does not quote them for he is relying on a secondary source.[5] We have already noted that Clement of Alexandria gave kephale the meaning “ruler” because of his synthesis of Greek philosophy wherefore his example is invalid. And although a superficial reading appears to confirm that Tertullian gave kephale the meaning “authority over,” the Latin text shows clearly that his intention was not to prove that Christ had authority over the man, but that He was the Creator.
“Caput viri christus est. Quis Christus? qui
non est viri auctor? Caput enim ad auctoritatem posuit, auctoritas autem non
alterius erit quam auctoris.”[6]
“The head of every man is Christ. “What
Christ, if He is not the author of man? The head he has here put for authority;
now authority will accrue to none else than the “author.”
Tertullian
wrote against Marcion whose Gnosticism made a lesser god the author of
humanity, but without authority. He used a play on the Latin words auctor (“author”) and auctoritas (“authority”) to prove that
Christ was the author of the man, and because he was the author, He had
authority over the man He had created.[7]
Tertullian did not give caput, the
Latin equivalent of the Greek kephale,
the meaning “authority over,” for he wrote, “The head he has here put for authority,” signifying that the word itself did not have the meaning. Similarly, in the treatise Of the Discipline and Advantage of Chastity,
which is attributed to Cyprian on questionable authority, kephale in Ephesians 5 refers to a
literal head.
The precepts of chastity,
brethren, are ancient. Wherefore do I say ancient? Because they were ordained
at the same time as men themselves. For both her own husband belongs to the
woman, for the reason that besides him she may know no other; and the woman is
given to the man for the purpose that, when that which had been his own had
been yielded to him, he should seek for nothing belonging to another. And in
such wise it is said, “Two shall be in one flesh,” that what had been made one
should return together, that a separation without return should not afford any
occasion to a stranger. Thence also the apostle declares that the man is the
head of the woman, that he might commend chastity in the conjunction of the
two. For as the head cannot be suited to the limbs of another, so also one’s
limbs cannot be suited to the head of another: for one’s head matches one’s
limbs, and one’s limbs one’s head; and both of them are associated by a natural
link in mutual concord, lest, by any discord arising from the separation of the
members, the compact of the divine covenant should be broken. Yet he adds, and
says: “Because he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one hates his own
flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the Church.” From this
passage there is great authority for charity with chastity, if wives are to be
loved by their husbands even as Christ loved the Church and wives ought so to
love their husbands also as the Church loves Christ.[8]
In an excerpt from Cyprian's treatise, Unity of the Church, kephale is given a similar meaning.
As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and
many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and
since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems
diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still
preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its
unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,—when
broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and
that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light
of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light
which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her
fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly
expands her rivers, liberally flowing,
yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in
the results of fruitfulness: from he womb we are born, by her milk we are
nourished, by her spirit we are animated. [9]
Neither does
Grudem quote any of the later writers, although the largest corpus of what
remains from the early church writings comes from the fourth and fifth
centuries.[10] Instead of quoting the early church writers,
Grudem relies heavily on secular sources, such as the writings of Plato,
Plutarch and Philo.
Although
Plato does not use the word kephale
explicitly to refer to a human ruler or leader, he does say (in the text quoted
earlier), that “the head… is the most divine part and the one that reigns over
all the parts within us.” (Timaeus 44D). This sentence does speak of the head
as the ruling part of the body and therefore indicates that a metaphor that
spoke of the leader or ruler of a group of people as its “head” would not have
been unintelligible to Plato or his hearers.[11]
A good example of the effect an underlying philosophy has on the meaning of a word is ekklesia. The Athenian ekklesia excluded slaves, children, youth, and women, for only freeborn men over twenty-one could be part of the governing assembly of Athens. But the biblical ekklesia found in Paul’s writings is not a governing assembly formed by male citizens but an assembly of believers who are united by their faith in Christ and in which earthly distinctions are obliterated (Gen. 3:28).
Additionally, Paul could not have had Plato’s concept in mind when he used kephale in Ephesians 5, for Plato’s governing kephale made the body inferior and sinful, which was decidedly against Paul’s theology. Augustine, on the other hand, incorporated Plato’s philosophy into his theology and the influence of his previous training is seen in that he gave kephale the meaning “ruler” when he wrote about men and women, and “beginning” when he wrote about Christ and the church.
“Christ is speaking: whether Head speak or whether
Body speak; He is speaking that hath said, “Why persecutest thou Me?” He is
speaking that hath said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of
Mine, to Me ye have done it.” The voice then of this Man is known to be of the
whole man, of Head and of Body: that need
not often be mentioned, because it is
known. [13]
“Begetter,
the latter the Begotten; the former not of the Son, the latter of the Father:
the former the Beginning of the latter,
whence also He is called the Head of Christ, although Christ likewise is
the Beginning, but not of the Father; the latter, moreover, the Image of the
former, although in no respect dissimilar, and although absolutely and without
difference equal. [14]
If,
then, the baptizer is not his origin and root and head, who is it from whom he
receives faith? Where is the origin from which he springs? Where is the root of
which he is a shoot? Where the head which
is his starting-point? Can it be, that when he who is baptized is unaware of
the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then Christ who gives faith, it is
then Christ who is the origin and root and head? Alas for human rashness and
conceit! Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith, for the
purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you not allow that
Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the Christian always plants
his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of the Christian? …But unless we
admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and origin of those whom he
had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom he had watered, rather than He
who had given them faith in believing; whereas the same Paul says, “I have
planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase: so then neither is he that
planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” Nor
was the apostle himself their root, but rather He who says, “I am the vine, ye
are the branches.” How, too, could he be their head, when he says, that “we,
being many, are one body in Christ,” and expressly declares in many passages
that Christ Himself is the head of the whole body? [15]
The Creed according to the
Council of the East. “If any man says
that the Son is incapable of birth and without beginning, saying as though
there were two incapable of birth and unborn and without beginning, and makes two Gods: let him be anathema. For the Head, which is the beginning of all
things, is the Son; but the Head or beginning of Christ is God: for so to
One who is without beginning and is the beginning of all things, we refer the
whole world through Christ. To declare the Son to be incapable of birth is the
height of impiety. God would no longer be One: for the nature of the one Unborn
God demands that we should confess that God is one. Since therefore God is one,
there cannot be two incapable of birth: because God is one (although both the
Father is God and the Son of God is God) for the very reason that incapability
of birth is the only quality that can belong to one Person only. The Son is God
for the very reason that He derives His birth from that essence which cannot be
born. Therefore our holy faith rejects the idea that the Son is incapable of
birth in order to predicate one God incapable of birth and consequently one
God, and in order to embrace the Only-begotten nature, begotten from the unborn
essence, in the one name of the Unborn God. For
the Head of all things is the Son: but the Head of the Son is God. And to
one God through this stepping-stone and by this confession all things are referred,
since the whole world takes its beginning
from Him to whom God Himself is the beginning”[16]
That kephale means “origin” and “beginning” is seen in that also Adam is called a “head.” Adam was not given authority over all humanity, but he is the origin of all humans.
For so God from the beginning contrived ten thousand ways for
implanting her in us. Thus, first, He
granted one head to all, Adam. For why do we not all spring out of the
earth? Why not full grown, as he was? In order that both the birth and the
bringings up of children, and the being born of another, might bind us mutually together. For this cause neither made He
woman out of the earth: and because the thing of the same substance was not
equally sufficient to shame us into unanimity, unless we had also the same
progenitor, He provided also for this: since, if now, being only separated by
place, we consider ourselves alien from one another; much more would this have
happened if our race had had two originals. For this cause therefore, as it
were from some one head, he bound together the whole body of the human race.
And because from the beginning they seemed to be in a manner two, see how he
fastens them together again, and gathers them into one by marriage. For, “therefore,” saith He, “shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they
shall be for one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24.) And he said not, “the woman,” but,
“the man,” because the desire too is stronger in him. Yea, and for this cause
He made it also stronger, that it might bow the superior party to the absolute
sway of this passion, and might subjugate it to the weaker. And since marriage
also must needs be introduced, him from whom she sprang He made husband to the
woman. For all things in the eye of God are second to love. And if when things
had thus begun, the first man straightway became so frantic, and the devil
sowed among them so great warfare and envy; what would he not have done, had they not sprung from one root?[17]
[1] Robertson McQuilkin, Understanding and Applying the Bible (Moody Press, Chicago, 1983),
122-123.
[2] Alter, xix.
[3] That Taylor
superimposed the traditional theological interpretation on the text is seen in
that many of his paraphrases add concepts not found in the original text. E.g.,
Taylor
translates 1 Cor. 11:10, “So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a
sign that she is under man's authority, a fact for all the angels to notice and
rejoice in.” The paraphrase adds the
man’s authority similarly to Jerome’s translation of Genesis 3:16: “Under the
man’s authority will you be.”
[4] Piper and Grudem, 425.
[5] Ibid., 454.
[6] Against Marcion,
Book V, Ch. VIII.
[7] Ibid., Book V, Ch. VII.
[8] Cyprian, Of the
Discipline and Advantage of Chastity, 5.
[9] “Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church” Treatises of
Cyprian, 3-4.
[10] Hastings,
57.
[11] Piper and Grudem, 440.
[12] Letters of Saint Augustine,
Letter XXX, 2.
[15] Augustine, In answer to the letters of Petilian, the
Donatist, Bishop of Certa, Book I, Ch. 4.5.
[16] Hilary of Poiters, On
the Councils, Or the Faith of the Easterns, XXVI, 59-60.
[17] Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXXIV.
No comments:
Post a Comment