Learning to thrive in the new life Jesus offers us – 2 Corinthians 5:16-17

Leon Morris on “Head” (Kephalē) in the New Testament

Leon Morris on the metaphorical meaning of "head" in the New TestamentAt the moment I’m reading through a short book called The Bible and Women’s Ministry: An Australian Dialogue published by Acorn Press back in 1990. The eight “chapters”[1] of the book are written by eight different men, all prominent, scholarly ministers and educators in the Anglican Church of Australia.[2]

In the first chapter, Peter Jensen (who recently retired as the Anglican archbishop of Sydney but was principal of Moore Theological College at the time of writing) explains how we should use Scripture in the debate about women in ministry. I won’t comment on Jensen’s chapter except to say that he spends a bit of time critiquing John Stott’s hermeneutic and view on women in ministry. Contrary to Jensen, I agree with what John Stott says here (quoted by Jensen on pages 7-8):

If God endows women with spiritual gifts (which he does), and thereby calls them to exercise their gifts for the common good (which he does), the Church must recognize God’s gifts and calling, must make appropriate spheres of service available to women, and should ‘ordain’ (that is commission and authorize) them to exercise their God-given ministry, at best in team situations.[3] Our Christian doctrines of Creation and Redemption tell us that God wants his gifted people to be fulfilled, not frustrated, and his church to be enriched by their service.
J.R.W Stott, Issues facing Christianity Today (Basingstoke: Marshalls, 1984) p. 254.

The chapter that has really got my attention so far is Leon Morris’s entitled Leadership and Authority. (Leon Morris was the Principal of Ridley Theological College, Melbourne, from 1964 until his retirement in 1976[4], and was an esteemed New Testament scholar who has written many commentaries on New Testament books, etc. He passed away in 2006.)

In his chapter, Morris writes about the usage of “head” in the Old Testament, in Greek writings, and in the New Testament; in particular, he comments on Paul’s use of “head” in 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, and Colossians. Morris wrote this chapter in answer to the presumption that “head” (Greek: kephalē) in the New Testament has the metaphorical meaning of “leader” or “authority”. This faulty assumption is being perpetuated by people such as Wayne Grudem. (Leon Morris criticizes Grudem’s 1985 article on kephalē.)[5]

Here is the opening paragraph of Morris’s chapter:

We are perhaps too well aware of the fact that we think with our brains. To us it is accordingly the most natural thing in the world to understand “head” in terms of direction and sovereignty. In the physical body it is the head that makes the decisions and gives the commands and when we use “head” metaphorically we quite naturally think of sovereignty. Our problem when we approach the New Testament is that the function of the central nervous system was not known to the ancients; they were unaware of the fact that we think with our brains. For them, thought was not located in the head but in the body, in the diaphragm or the heart. It is also the case that the New Testament writers never explain what they mean by “head” nor do they discuss the relationship between head and body. We must accordingly examine the relevant passages with some care. We must be on our guard against thinking that Paul, for example, means by “head” what we would mean if we used the term, or that he sees the relationship between head and body the same way as we do. He may, he may not. It is not easy to see what the head-body relationship would mean to someone who held that we think with the diaphragm, not the brain. We must think hard about what the ancients had in mind when they spoke about head and body. (p. 23)

It is important that we heed Morris’s caution and take care not to make hasty assumptions about the metaphorical meaning of “head” if we want to faithfully interpret Paul’s meaning and intent.


Endnotes

[1] The book is divided into four parts, each part containing two chapters (or essays.) The second chapter in each part is a response to the first chapter of each part.

[2] I think it’s a shame that not one women contributed to this book which is on a topic which clearly affects women deeply.

[3] I also believe ministering in a team situation is the ideal for all Christians, both men and women.

[4] “The Ridley staff and college were openly in favour of women lecturing, preaching, being ordained and when possible being appointed to incumbencies.” (Source)

[5] Morris agrees with Gordon D. Fee’s criticism of Grudem’s article. Morris quotes Fee as saying: “Grudem’s article is quite misleading both in its presentation and conclusion.” (p. 26)  Grudem’s article is in Appendix 1 of George W. Knight III, The Role Relationship of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985). A more recent article by Wayne Grudem on the same subject, which also draws criticism, is available online here.


Related Articles

(1) Kephalē and Male Headship in Paul’s Letters
(2) Kephalē and Proto-Gnosticism in Paul’s Letters
LSJ Definitions of Kephalē 
The Chiasm in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Who is the Head?
Mutual Submission in Clement’s First Letter

Posted October 27th, 2013 . Categories/Tags: Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Ministry, Women in Ministry, , , , , ,

Unkind, judgemental, bizarre, and off-topic comments will be deleted.

6 comments on “Leon Morris on “Head” (Kephalē) in the New Testament

  1. Marg says:

    We’ve been discussing this post on the newlife.id.au facebook page and I thought it would be good to share some of the discussion points here.

    Some people in Paul’s time thought the brain was made up of semen which traveled down the spinal cord to the genitals and produced life. In earlier times, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers taught this. Pythagoreans, for example, believed that “semen is a drop of the brain”. Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, 19.

    The Greeks also connected semen (from the brain) with food and nourishment (cf. Eph. 5:28-29). http://www2.ivcc.edu/gen2002/Aristotle_Generation.htm

    Galen (130-200 AD) a prominent Greek physician and philosopher, was one of the first people to connect the brain with its real function.

    Before Galen, most Greco-Romans saw the brain as the source of life and of nourishment, while we see the brain as the source of thought and emotion, as well as the organ which governs the body. Moreover, we tend to conflate “brain” with “head”. However, we need to understand what Paul was saying to his original readers in the Greco-Roman world if we are to correctly understand how he used the word “head” metaphorically in his letters.

  2. aletheia says:

    Morris states that, ” For them [i.e. the ancients], thought was not located in the head but in the body, in the diaphragm or the heart.

    Whilst this view was certainly held by some ancients, it was not held by all. One need only read Plato to see this. In his dialogue Timaeus he states:

    “First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that, namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us: to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants, considering that it partook of every sort of motion. In order then that it might not tumble about among the high and deep places of the earth, but might be able to get over the one and out of the other, they provided the body to be its vehicle and means of locomotion; which consequently had length and was furnished with four limbs extended and flexible; these God contrived to be instruments of locomotion with which it might take hold and find support, and so be able to pass through all places, carrying on high the dwelling-place of the most sacred and divine part of us.” (Timaeus 44d-45a)

    Clearly then, for Plato at least, the head – which contains the rational soul – is the lord of the rest of our body, which is servant to the head.
    I do not know what else Morris suggested, not having read the article in question – but it is simply wrong to suggest that no one in the ancient world considered the ‘head’ as the place where thought happens, and as the place that gives direction and sovereignty to the rest of the body.
    When such an important and influential philosopher as Plato clearly teaches such, one would expect that this, at least, should be seriously taken into account as one reconstructs a picture of anthropology in the ancient world.

    • Marg says:

      Thanks for this, aletheia.

      So for Plato the head is the “most divine and holy part” of man, and contains the soul. This is important considering what he says about the soul in 46d.

  3. Marg says:

    Some information about the ancient Hebrew understanding that the heart, and not the brain (or “head”), is the organ of thinking and emotion.

    There is no Hebrew word for brain, and neither the Israelites nor any of the other ancient peoples knew what the brain was for. The Egyptian priests who mummified bodies carefully preserved all of the important internal organs in canopic jars, but they pulled the brain out with a hook through the nostrils and discarded it as so much trash. For the ancients, the representation of the heart as the seat of intellect and emotions was not simply figurative speech, as it is for us. They knew of no other reality.

    John H.Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary) Zondervan, p. 88.

  4. aletheia says:

    In further criticism of Morris, it might also be useful to see how Paul’s own near contemporaries were using the word head (‘kephale’).

    For instance, the Jewish historian Josephus, writing in about AD 75, states,
    “[52] The city Jerusalem is situated in the very middle; on which account some have, with sagacity enough, called that city the Navel of the country. [53] Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such delights as come from the sea, since its maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais: [54] it was parted into eleven portions, of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body. As to the other cities that were inferior to it, they presided over their several toparchies;” (Emphasis added)
    Or, in Greek,
    “[52] μεσαιτάτη δ᾽ αὐτῆς πόλις τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα κεῖται, παρ᾽ ὃ καί τινες οὐκ ἀσκόπως ὀμφαλὸν τὸ ἄστυ τῆς χώρας ἐκάλεσαν. [53] ἀφῄρηται δ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ θαλάσσης τερπνῶν ἡ Ἰουδαία τοῖς παραλίοις κατατείνουσα μέχρι Πτολεμαΐδος. [54] μερίζεται δ᾽ εἰς ἕνδεκα κληρουχίας, ὧν ἄρχει μὲν βασίλειον τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα προανίσχουσα τῆς περιοίκου πάσης ὥσπερ ἡ κεφαλὴ σώματος: αἱ λοιπαὶ δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν διῄρηνται τὰς τοπαρχίας.”
    – Jospehus, De bello Judaico, Bk.3, Ch3, Sec.5

    In other words, we have here a near Jewish contemporary of Paul, who makes an analogy between the (1) status of Jerusalem in relation to the surrounding cities, and (2) the status of the head in relation to the body – namely:
    (1) As the city of Jerusalem is supreme (or chief, ruler – ἄρχει), and presides over (or is eminent above, both in terms of its geography but more importantly in terms of its political status – προανίσχουσα), and just like, in turn, those cities that were inferior to Jerusalem (which Jerusalem was chief over) also presided over their several toparchies, so also:
    (2) The head (ἡ κεφαλὴ) has this same relationship to the body (σώματος).
    Which must mean that, for Josephus, the head presides over, or has eminence above, the body. This is in terms of its being supreme (chief or ruler).

    So what is important to note here, is that for Josephus the reason that the head has eminence over the body, and thus is considered chief or ruler over the body, is not necessarily because of any supposed anthropological understanding that the head ‘thinks’ or ‘makes decisions’ (or is somehow associated with these activities). It seems quite independent of this. In fact, it is for the simple reason the the head sits higher than the rest of the body. It is elevated in terms of its position, and so for that reason it can act as a metaphor for being elevated in status. The higher the position, the higher the status, as it were.
    So Jerusalem, being geographically higher than its surrounding environs is a symbol of its status as being the politically ‘higher’ city among its environs. It acts as chief or supreme amongst the cities in the region, and this is nicely exemplified in its being geographically elevated also.
    But likewise those cities which are inferior (in political status) to Jerusalem also exercise a status of being supreme or chief amongst their several toparchies – and here, whether or not they are geographically higher.
    So, to directly interact with the quotation from Morris:
    Morris states,
    “We are perhaps too well aware of the fact that we think with our brains. To us it is accordingly the most natural thing in the world to understand “head” in terms of direction and sovereignty. In the physical body it is the head that makes the decisions and gives the commands and when we use “head” metaphorically we quite naturally think of sovereignty. Our problem when we approach the New Testament is that the function of the central nervous system was not known to the ancients; they were unaware of the fact that we think with our brains. For them, thought was not located in the head but in the body, in the diaphragm or the heart.”

    The problem here is that Morris is not being clear in who he means by ‘ancients’. Certainly, it may be argued that some in the ancient word, did not consider the head to be in any way connected with thought. This thesis may be able to be sustained with, for example, the Homeric poems.
    But, clearly, Morris is wrong if we consider the quotation from Plato (Timaeus 44d-45a) cited in a previous reply above. So not all the ancients can be categorised as Morris suggests.

    Morris continues:
    “It is also the case that the New Testament writers never explain what they mean by “head” nor do they discuss the relationship between head and body. We must accordingly examine the relevant passages with some care. We must be on our guard against thinking that Paul, for example, means by “head” what we would mean if we used the term, or that he sees the relationship between head and body the same way as we do. He may, he may not. It is not easy to see what the head-body relationship would mean to someone who held that we think with the diaphragm, not the brain. We must think hard about what the ancients had in mind when they spoke about head and body. (p23)”

    The problem here, is that Morris seems to be stuck in considering that the only way someone could maintain that the head can act as an authority over the body, is because the head is considered to be what we use to ‘think’ and so give direction to the body. But people in the ancient world did not maintain this – so alleges Morris.
    Again this is erroneous – in two ways.
    (1) People in the ancient world did believe that the head is associated with thought. Plato being one of them, who maintained that the rational soul was in the head. Not because of any (and philosophically erroneous I might add) modern brain-mind identity theory, but rather because the head is spherical.
    (2) It is entirely possible to build a metaphor of the head being an authority over the body without any commitment to ‘where’ thinking takes place, or what bodily organ (if any!) is associated with thinking. Josephus is doing just this in the passage above. It is because of its being physically higher than the rest of the body, that the head has eminence over the rest of the body. To be elevated over another is to be more authoritative – a chief, or ruler. That is why kings were bowed down to in times past (and even today!). Contrary to Morris then, it is very easy to see what the head-body relationship is, independently of what one considers to be the organ one thinks with (again – if any).

    • Marg says:

      Thanks for this aletheia. This is excellent information.

      Andrew Perriman believes that “head” is used with the sense of preeminence. This may be what Josephus is saying here about Jerusalem standing out, or above, the surrounding regions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2009–2016   Margaret Mowczko | Powered by WordPress

More in Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Ministry
Mutual Submission is not a Myth

Dear Dr Grudem, mutual submission is not a myth. Submission is not always, or necessarily, to a person in authority (cf Ephesians 5:21-22)....

Close