An annual Christmas Day service held jointly by two Presbyterian churches in Ireland for more than 60 years was anything but merry this year: the service was canceled due to a controversy over female ministers.

What the BBC is calling a "gender row" erupted during the holidays between First Portadown Church and Armagh Road Church-two congregations in Armagh County, Northern Ireland-when First Portadown pastor Stafford Carson refused "in conscience" to participate in the joint service with Christina Bradley, pastor at Armagh.

The Sunday before Christmas both pastors read an agreed-upon statement from their respective pulpits: "It is very unfortunate that the crux of the matter is the gender issue. This year, there is no joint Christmas Day service, but what happens next year is a different matter which could enable both churches to move forward."

What will happen next year? Will Carson be forced to capitulate against his conscience? Probably not, because of the church's "middle ground" policy on the issue Irish Presbyterian Moderator John Finlay was visiting the Portadown church on the Sunday the joint statement was read.

Finlay pointed out that the Irish Presbyterian Church has been ordaining women to the pastorate since the mid-1970s, adding, "But there are conscientious objectors who interpret the Scriptures differently and the Church allows their freedom of conscience. And I am confident the situation can be resolved between the two churches. This is the law of the Church. We have to accommodate both points of view, or the Church could be torn apart."

Stafford Carson's bold and courageous stance upon his biblical convictions is worthy of commendation; standing firm upon the truth of God's Word will always be unpopular, as Paul points out in the first two chapters of Corinthians. On the other hand, Christina Bradley accused Carson of gender discrimination and even provincialism: "I cannot see it otherwise than discrimination. I am a woman, a widow and a foreigner, being from Germany."

The Irish Presbyterian Church's official stance on this issue is disappointing, but all too typical in this pragmatic and relativistic age: "We have to accommodate both points of view, or the Church would be torn apart."

Unfortunately, the unity which is enforced by such a "middle ground" policy is not a genuine unity; Again, Paul is helpful here: "Love rejoices with the truth." (1 Cor. 13:6)  This gender debate within Irish Presbyterianism proves at least one thing: there is no real middle ground on the gender debate.

There have been many well-intentioned attempts at forging a via media on the gender issue, but, in the end, all such attempts have left churches and denominations polarized and authentic fellowship has been broken. This so-called "middle ground" is sadly ironic: such a view undermines the very pragmatism upon which it is built—it never works.

Orthodox Judaism is going egalitarian.

The Jerusalem Post last week announced that the Shalom Hartman Institute, founded by noted Rabbi David Hartman, himself a modern Orthodox rabbi, will open a four-year program next year to prepare women and men of all denominations within Judaism—Reform Conservative, Reconstructionist and also Orthodox—for rabbinic ordination.

Ordination will be provided within the framework of a teacher-training program that prepares graduates to serve in Jewish high schools in North America.

"For too long now we have been robbing ourselves of 50 percent of our potential leaders, people who can shape and inspire others," said Rabbi Donniel Hartman, co-director of the institute and son of David Hartman.

Donniel Hartman said contemporary culture demands that the understanding of gender roles within Judaism—with leadership traditionally limited to men within Orthodox Judaism—must change with the times.

"The classic distinctions between men and women are no longer relevant," he said. "Our latest decision is a natural evolution of our existing policy."

Hartman will be the first institute to offer Orthodox rabbinic ordination to women and the Post story points out that this development will most certainly spark controversy within the Orthodox denomination. Reform Judaism, the most liberal movement within Judaism, began ordaining women in 1972, Reconstructionists began in 1977 and Conservative Judaism began in 1983, making Orthodox the last to capitulate to cultural pressures.

While it is true that Judaism is not evangelical Christianity, the Orthodox movement's decision mirrors the same trend on the issue of women's ordination seen within Protestant Christianity.

It appears that complementarian evangelicals will soon stand alone in their insistence on upholding God's good plan for men and women.  We must stand on the truth of scripture alone, since neither culture nor tradition are sufficient.

Orthodox Judaism is the final domino within that faith tradition to fall on the gender issue; let us learn from this and, with humility, let us also "Stand firm...and be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might" (Eph. 6), and not shrink back from insisting on the truth of God's Word.  

This post is the fourth in a series (Part One, Part Two, Part Three) addressing the meaning of the word kephale.

This critical word is used in the New Testament in key passages such as "for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior" (Ephesians 5:23), and "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3).

In this series we have heard from John Mark Reynolds, Wayne Grudem and P.G.W. Glare, and we have walked through the process of using lexicon and literary context to understand the meaning of a word.

At each step we have concluded that in the context of the verses above Paul used the word kephale to most likely mean "have authority over." It is extremely unlikely or impossible that the author intended this word to mean that Christ is the "source without authority" of the Church and a husband is the "source without authority" of his wife.

Where do we go from here?

First, every husband needs to be reminded that his authority in marriage comes from God, is defined by the Word of God, and is to be modeled after the sacrificial, loving relationship of Christ to the church. In no way is this authority a license for selfish tyranny or boorish abuse.

Second, every wife needs to be encouraged to intelligent submission to her own husband with the Spirit-given patience that comes from an understanding that all husbands are sinful and in a process of sanctification.

Third, everyone who would like to dig deeper into the Greek scholarship behind this question, should consider the following articles for further study:

1. An Open Letter to Egalitarians (Revised 2003)
2. The Meaning of Kephale ("Head"): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged
3. "Does kephale ("Head") Mean "Source" or "Authority over" in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples" (Trinity Journal 6 NS [1985], 38-59).
4. "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies" (Trinity Journal 11 NS [1990], 3-72.

• Part 1
• Part 2
  
• Part 3
  
• Part 4
• Alternative View Part 1
• Alternative View Part 2

This post is the third in a series (Part One, Part Two) addressing this interesting question posed in the blogosphere:

Why do some people say that there is no evidence kephale can mean 'source' or 'origin?'

Here's the reference from the lexicon, and a link to the same entry, here.

d. in pl., source of a river (Hdt. 4.91) (butsg., mouth, oida Gela potamou kephalêi epikeimenon astu Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.48 ): generally, source, origin, Zeus k. (v.l. arkhê), Zeus messa, Dios d' ek panta teleitai tetuktai codd.) Orph.Fr.21a; starting-point, k. khronou Placit. 2.32.2 (kronou codd.), Lyd.Mens.3.4; k. mênos ib.12.

Background

First, some background for those who may be newcomers to the gender debate, and to encourage you that it is worth your time to read to the end of this unusually long post:

The definition shown in the blogosphere question above has been clipped from the Greek-English Lexicon originally edited by H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott, and revised by Henry Stuart Jones (ninth edition: Oxford: Calarendon, 1968, pg. 945). (This outstanding lexicon is generally called "Liddell-Scott" by scholars and is now available online.) But consulting a lexicon (dictionary) by itself is not sufficient to determine the meaning of a word.

When trying understand the meaning of a word such as kephalē, it is common to begin with a Greek-English lexicon and then to examine the word in its literary context. The lexicon provides the possible meanings for a given word, but context and usage are the primary indication of an author's meaning.

For example, a lexicon will tell us that the English word "post" can have about two dozen different meanings, including "an upright timber," "to mail a letter," and "a military base or position" (not to mention more modern meanings, such as "to put a blog entry on the web" or "the area on a basketball court under the hoop"). Such definitions help us rule out what a word likely does not mean in common usage. From the dictionary we infer that the word "post" is unlikely to mean "tune a piano" or "eat a tuna fish."

The literary context is what provides the clues as to the authorial intent of the meaning of a specific word. In a sentence like, "I stubbed my toe on a post" we would never expect that the author was referring to a blog entry or mailing a letter (especially since the word in question is being used as a noun instead of a verb). The author might be referring to an injury occurring on a military base or basketball court, but it seems unlikely. The precise meaning would be even more clear if the prior sentence referred to a person walking toward a farmer's fence on a misty evening.

In the same way Greek word kephalē can also have several different meanings that must be determined from context. When referring to a person, this word most commonly means "head" and carries connotation of authority or oversight. When referring to things (such as plants, plots of land, or pottery vessels) it often means "an extremity" such as "the head of a column" or "a head of garlic." When kephalē is used with respect to a river, it is used in the singular to refer to the "mouth" of the river and in the plural form to refer to the "source" of the river.

Using this process, we can interpret the meaning of kephalē in a verse such as "for the husband is the head (Greek kephalē) of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (Ephesians 5:23). Since this word refers to a person so it most likely indicates "on in authority over." Since it is not used in the plural form, we can rule out the meaning "source." Since it is singular, it could potentially mean "mouth" but it is unlikely because "Christ is the mouth of the church" does not seem theologically consistent with the rest of the Bible.

At this point it is appropriate to hear from the third scholar in this blog series P.G.W. Glare, who served as the editor of the Liddell-Scott lexicon in Oxford, England and is therefore eminently qualified to comment on the definition of this word.

P.G.W. Glare

Glare denies that the word "head" ever had the meaning "source" in ancient Greek literature.

Regarding kephalē, Glare says, "The entry under this word in LSJ is not very satisfactory." But he adds, "I was unable to revise the longer articles in LSJ when I was preparing the latest Supplement, since I did not have the financial resources to carry out a full-scale revision."

With regard to win Grudem's study of kephalē, he writes, "I am in broad agreement with your conclusions." He adds, speaking of the usage in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), "kephalē is the word normally used to translate the Hebrew r'osh, and this does seem frequently to denote leader or chief without much reference to its original anatomical sense, and here it seems perverse to deny authority" (italics added).

Then Glare adds the following comment: "The supposed sense ‘source' of course does not exist and it was at least unwise of Liddell and Scott to mention the word. At the most they should have said ‘applied to the source of a river in respect of its position in its (the river's) course'" (bold added). Coming from someone who, because of his position, can rightfully be called the preeminent Greek lexicographer in the world, this is a significant statement. Glare adds that "in most cases the sense of the head as being the controlling agent is the one required" when dealing with similes or comparisons.

Finally, with respect to Grudem's 1990 article, he adds, "I shall file it in the hope that one day we will be able to embark on a more thorough revision of the lexicon."

Conlusion

By Wayne Grudem

Where does this leave us with regard to the dispute over kephalē in the ancient world? Up to this time, Liddell-Scott was the only lexicon that even mentioned the possibility of the meaning "source" for kephalē. All the other lexicons for the New Testament gave meanings such as "leader, ruler, person in authority" and made no mention of the meaning "source" (see Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, p. 430; Louw-Nida, 1:739; the older lexicons by Thayer, p. 345, and Craemer, p. 354; also TDNT, 3:363-372; the sixth German edition of Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch [1988], p. 874-875; and most recently A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint edited by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996], p. 254.)

But now the editor of the only lexicon that mentioned the meaning "source" in any connection says that the supposed sense "source" for kephalē "of course, does not exist," and says that it was "at least unwise" for Liddell and Scott to mention the word source. (If it was "at least unwise," we may conclude that it was perhaps more than unwise.) Moreover, he agrees that the meaning "leader or chief " is clearly attested for kephalē.

This letter therefore seems to indicate that there is no "battle of the lexicons" over the meaning of kephalē, but that the authors and editors of all the lexicons for ancient Greek now agree (1) that the meaning "leader, chief, person in authority" clearly exists for kephalē, and (2) that the meaning "source" simply does not exist.

• Part 1
• Part 2
  
• Part 3
  
• Part 4
• Alternative View Part 1
• Alternative View Part 2

This post is the second in a series addressing this interesting question posed in the blogosphere:

Why do some people say that there is no evidence kephale can mean 'source' or 'origin?'

Here's the reference from the lexicon, and a link to the same entry, here.

d. in pl., source of a river (Hdt. 4.91) (butsg., mouth, oida Gela potamou kephalêi epikeimenon astu Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.48 ): generally, source, origin, Zeus k. (v.l. arkhê), Zeus messa, Dios d' ek panta teleitai tetuktai codd.) Orph.Fr.21a; starting-point, k. khronou Placit. 2.32.2 (kronou codd.), Lyd.Mens.3.4; k. mênos ib.12.

First, some background on why this is such an important question for those who may be newcomers to the gender debate:

Background

Why is the meaning of the word kephale in its context so important in understanding the Bible? One of the key Bible passages that defines the complementary relationship of men and women in marriage is found in Paul's letter to the Corinthian church:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

Paul originally wrote this verse in common Greek and used the word kephale for "head." Some would translate the word kephale in this context as meaning a person who "has authority over" another, while others would say the word means "source without authority".

In the first essay in this series John Mark Reynolds from Biola University examined the possible meanings of this word from the time of Plato. He remarked that "a lexicon is a useful tool, but it cannot substitute for examining the particular figurative usage of the term in its literary context," and concluded. "Any claim that 'head' did not refer to 'an authority' prior to the Christian era should be abandoned."

Today we will hear from Wayne Grudem, an author and professor at Phoenix Seminary.

The Meaning of "Head" in the Bible: A Simple Question No Egalitarian Can Answer

by Wayne Grudem

If you ever meet an egalitarian (an evangelical feminist) claiming that the word "head" in the Bible doesn't mean "authority" but means "source," you may wonder how to answer. Their purpose, of course, is to get rid of the idea of authority in the family in verses like, "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph. 5:23). So they claim that the word "head" (the Greek word kephalē) meant "source" rather than "authority" in the ancient world. Sometimes they quote some ancient Greek texts which, they say, show Zeus to be the "source" of all things, or Esau to be the "source" of his clan, or which mention the "head" of a river. For a verse about husbands and wives, even this idea makes no sense (I am not the source of my wife!), but they will usually then suggest a more specific meaning like "source of encouragement."

At this point in the discussion there is something that can be done. There is a simple question which they have never been able to answer. It is this:

You claim that the Greek word for "head" means "source without the idea of authority." Will you please show me one example in all of ancient Greek where this word (kephalē) is used to refer to a person and means what you claim, namely, "non-authoritative source"?

I asked this of both Catherine Kroeger and Gilbert Bilezikian in public debate in Atlanta in 1986 and they gave me no example. I asked this question in an academic article published in Trinity Journal in 1990 and received no example. I asked this question in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991 and received no example. That is because no example has ever been found.

The reason is simple: In the Greek speaking world, to be the head of a group of people always meant to have authority over those people. Notice the egalitarian examples: Zeus is the chief of the Greek gods! Esau was the leader of the clan descended from him. These examples don't disprove the idea of authority; they confirm it.

The example of "head of a river "doesn't prove "source without authority," because (1) this usage is not referring to a person at all, and (2) the example is misquoted for Eph. 5:23, because there "head" is singular, and "head" in the singular is in fact used to refer to the other end of the river, the "mouth" while only in the plural is it used of the "source" of the river (see the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon, p. 945), and (3) in both cases it just means "end point," in the same way that it can refer to the "head of a column" or "head of a pole," and these examples have nothing to do with the ideas of "source" or "authority."

I once looked up over 2,300 examples of the word "head" (kephalē) in ancient Greek. In these texts the word kephalē is applied to many people in authority, but to none without governing authority:

• the king of Egypt is called "head" of the nation
• the general of an army is called the "head" of the army
• the Roman emperor is called the "head" of the people
• the god Zeus is called the "head" of all things
• David as king of Israel is called the "head" of the people
• the leaders of the tribes of Israel are called "heads" of the tribes
• the husband is the "head" of the wife
• Christ is the "head" of the church
• God the Father is the "head" of Christ

(For details, see my 35-page article available under reprints on page 15, or see pages 425-468 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).

No one in a non-leadership position is called "head"-ever. The egalitarian assertion that a person who is called the kephalē can be the "source without governing authority" is simply false.

Therefore I would encourage you, in discussing these matters with egalitarian friends, to ask this simple question: May I see an example to support your claim that there is no authority implied in the word "head" in the statement, "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church"?

Can egalitarians find even one example out of millions of words of ancient Greek literature where a person is called "head" and it means "non-authoritative source"? If even one example could be found, then of course we could go on to discuss whether that meaning might be the one that best fits the context of Ephesians 5.

But if they cannot find one example of this meaning, then their proposed sense of the word in Ephesians 5:23 is a theory without one hard fact to support it. Of course, people can still believe in theories that have no facts to support them if they wish, but such belief can no longer be thought to be reasonable or academically responsible. And such unsupported theories should certainly not be used in debates, or written in commentaries and reference books, or thought to be true.

• Part 1
• Part 2
  
• Part 3
  
• Part 4
• Alternative View Part 1
• Alternative View Part 2