I’ve been following Rachel Held Evans’ Week of Mutuality,
which is about Christian egalitarianism. I’ve learned more about at
least three debates. In this post, I’ll talk about what I learned about
these debates on Rachel’s blog.
1. The first debate concerns the meaning of kephale in I
Corinthians 11:3, which (in the KJV) says: “But I would have you know,
that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the
man; and the head of Christ is God.” Kephale is the word that the KJV translates as “head”. Others contend, however, that the word should be translated as “source”. Does kephale
in I Corinthians 11:3 mean that the man has authority over the woman,
or that man was the source of the woman (when God made the woman out of
man at creation, I assume).
Some scholars argue that there is not a whole lot of evidence that kephale can mean “source”. D.A. Carson says on page 37 of Exegetical Fallacies (and I have edited the passage, since I do not know how to put Greek fonts in a blog post):
“The Mickelsens make much of the idea ‘head of a river’ as the
river’s ‘source’; but in all such cases cited by LSJ, the word is
plural, kaphalai. The only example listed by LSJ where kephale (sing.) means ‘source’ or ‘origin’ is the document the Fragmenta Ophilcorum,
from the fifth century B.C. or earlier, which is both textually
uncertain and patient of more than one translation. Although some of
the New Testament metaphorical uses of kephale could be taken
to mean ‘source,’ all other factors being equal, in no case is that the
required meaning; and in every instance the notion of ‘headship’
implying authority fits equally well or better. The relevant lexica are
full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which kephale connotes authority.”
Other scholars, however, maintain that kephale can mean “source” in I Corinthians 11:3. Suzanne McCarthy has written posts on the meaning of kephale (see here). She appears to overlap with Carson on what the data are—-kephale appears to mean “source” in a fifth century B.C.E. document, and there aren’t other places where it unequivocally means that. But she brings up other considerations: that kephale and arche
(which can mean “source”) are treated as synonymous “from the time of
the Orphic fragment, in 500 B.C.E. to the time of Cyril of Alexandria in
the 5th century A.D.”; and that there are very few places where kephale refers to being in authority. Wayne Grudem argues the opposite (see here),
but then he and Suzanne interpret certain passages differently and
offer arguments for their respective positions: are these passages in
question talking about authority, pre-eminence (without authority), or
something else?
In my opinion, the simplest interpretation of I Corinthians
11 is that the passage is saying that women are subordinate to men, and
so women need to wear a head-covering as a sign of their subordination.
I’m not saying this sort of attitude is right, but that’s what the text
appears to me to say. But I have to admit that I have not thoroughly
researched egalitarian interpretations of this passage.
2. In Romans 16:7, Paul appears to refer to Junia as an apostle.
Junia was a female name. So were there female apostles in the early
Christian church?
In a post, Rachel Held Evans presents Junia as a female apostle. She
notes that a fourth century bishop, John Chrysostom, regarded Junia as a
woman, and she states that a later medieval theologian made Junia a man
by turning her name into “Junias”.
A commenter, P.M., accused Rachel of selectively referring to evidence:
“As has been stated on the blog numerous times, people pick and
choose. Since Rachel has chosen to pick the early church father
Chrysostom who died in A.D. 407 as one who referred to Junia as a woman,
I’ll choose the early church father Origen who died in 252 as one who
referred to Junia as a man. I’ll also mention the early church historian
Epiphanius who died in 403 also refers to him as being a man.”
Suzanne McCarthy, however, argues in this article that there is more to the story, and that there is good reason to believe that Junia was a woman:
“David Jones, in his article on the CBMW website, states that Origen
also referred to Junias as a male. In fact, it is only in a 12th century
manuscript of Rufinus’ Latin paraphrase of Origen’s commentary on
Romans, that the variant Junias is found. In the critical text for
Rufinus, the conclusion is that Rufinus had used the feminine, as is
found in the majority of the copies of his work.
“There is no scholarly argument remaining today that Origen, or any
Greek author – other than Epiphanius ‐ ever mentioned the masculine name
Junias, from the earliest manuscripts up to our present day Greek
Bibles and church calendar. In the Greek Orthodox Church today, Junia is
a saint and considered one of the seventy apostles. It is not unheard
of for the Greek church to honour female apostles. Saint Nina is
another. This does not mean that they were ordained as priests, and I
will not be discussing that in this post. In addition to this evidence
for a feminine Junia, there is an icon which clearly demonstrates that
Junia was a woman.”
“Epiphanius…referred to Junias as a masculine name. However, this is
usually discounted as he also called Prisca ‘Priscus’ a man. In general,
scholars agree that all Greek and Latin authors before the 12th century
referred to Junia as a female, and some referred to her as an apostle.”
3. Galatians 3:28 says (in the KJV): “There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Some argue that Galatians 3:28 does not imply that women can
serve as pastors or have the roles that belong to men, but rather
affirms that they are spiritually equal with men before God—-which
supposedly has nothing to do with their roles.
KR Wordgazer (whose blog is here),
however, does not think that one can easily divorce spiritual status
from its social implications: “savation was not really separated in the
manner you are describing, from the rest of Christian life in the minds
of the apostles. In any event, Galatians 3:28 is simply not just about
‘salvation’ in the sense of relating to God– or Paul would not, earlier
in the letter, have related how he rebuked Peter for refusing to eat
with the Gentiles. Also, Galatians 3 goes on into Chapter 4, the first
part of which is all about our equal status as ‘adopted sons.’ ‘Adopted
sons’ as understood by Paul and his audience, was not just about future
inheritance, but about current status and privileges.”
The spiritual equality of Jews and Greeks had social
implications—-they could eat together. I think what KR Wordgazer is
saying is that the spiritual equality of men and women was likewise
believed by Paul to have social implications, in the direction of
egalitarianism.