Translating 1 Corinthians 11:20: Deipnon-Part II

Greek: Συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν,

Admittedly, most translations usually render 1 Cor. 11:20 as "Lord's supper," but does this mean "evening meal" is a mistranslation or wrong? What I've found is that "Lord's supper" or some variant thereof is largely governed by tradition.

The context of 1 Cor. 11:20 lends itself to the translation "evening meal." For instance, 1 Cor. 11:23 states:

"For I received from the Lord that same thing that I handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was to be arrested, took bread" (Byington)

Paul explicitly writes that Jesus instituted his deipnon at night, and we know that Christ likely introduced this meal after Passover, which occurred that night of Nisan 14 even though another proposed date is Nisan 15. In any case, the evidence suggests a nocturnal observance of the Lord's deipnon. Are there other indications that "evening meal" is not a mistranslation?

"The common noun, deipnon, was used for the main daily meal, usually taken in the evening; see Luke 14:12 (cf. Luke, 1047). It could also denote a festal meal or banquet (Luke 14:16, 24)." (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 434).

John 13:2, 4 speaks of the deipnon held by the Lord, and this observance occurred at night. Compare John 13:30. See George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, 117.

Parsenios writes: "John's Last Supper scene is roughly modeled on the symposium format. It is a deipnon followed by a communal gathering" (page 123).

For information on how writers use deipnon in the Septuagint, see https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD&diacritics=off

Also see https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/deipnon-e313040

Stanley Porter and P.Egerton 2 (Dating the Gospel of John)

This quote comes from Stanley E. Porter; it is part of a longer discussion in his book John, His Gospel, and Jesus: in Pursuit of the Johannine Voice:

As almost every scholar who works with ancient manuscripts admits, the dating of manuscripts is extremely difficult when all one has is undated manuscripts for comparison. Nevertheless, the development of a timeline or trajectory is necessary. The evidence that I have analyzed above indicates that the order of writing of the manuscripts discussed above was as follows: the canonical Gospel of John, probably 70-90, which would ensure that there was enough time for it to be circulated, copied, and transmitted to Egypt, where it was then used and copied further; then P.Rylands Greek 457 around 100-120, although the absence of the nomina sacra, if they were introduced around 100, may possibly push the date even earlier; and then P.Egerton 2 copied sometime from the mid to late second cen- tury, perhaps around 170.

For more on P.Egerton 2, see http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Egerton_Papyrus_2

Translating 1 Corinthians 11:20: Deipnon--Part I

Greek: συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν,

ESV: "When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat."

ASV: "When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper:"

Authorized KJV: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper."

NWT 2013: "When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord's Evening Meal."

Bill Mounce on δεῖπνον:


Definition:
pr. a meal; supper, the principal meal taken in the evening, Lk. 14:12; Jn. 13:2, 4; meton. food, 1 Cor. 11:21; a feast, banquet, Mt. 23:6; Mk. 6:21; 12:39

See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/deipnon

Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary: Noun: δεῖπνον (deipnon), GK 1270 (S 1173), 16x. deipnon means “supper, feast, banquet” and refers to the main meal in biblical times, eaten in the evening. This is clear from Lk 14:12, where a separate term is used for a “luncheon,” a meal eaten earlier in the day. deipnon can also refer to a more formal meal or eating occasion, a “banquet.”

The NWT has been criticized for "overtranslating" 1 Cor. 11:20, 25, but is this criticism justified in the light of what δεῖπνον probably means in these verses?

Bowman invokes Anthony Thiselton to undermine the rendering "Evening Meal" as we find in NWT. Thiselton explains that δεῖπνον doesn't necessarily specify the meal's timing, whether it's evening or morning. Let's quote Bowman verbatim as he uses Thiselton:

Thiselton comments that deipnon “usually designates the main meal of the day in the Graeco-Roman world. Like the English dinner, it usually denotes an evening meal in formal circles, but as in the case of the English phrase ‘Christmas dinner’ the emphasis concerns the major event rather than the specific timing. It need not always be an evening meal, although in practice it usually was” (Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 863-64). Thus, the rendering “evening meal” in the New World Translation at 1 Corinthians 11:20, 25 is an overtranslation that makes the timing of the meal specific in a way that the Greek wording does not (cf. Mark 6:21; 12:39; Luke 14:12-24; 17:8; Rev. 3:20).

It's a fair point that δεῖπνον does not always signify the evening meal, but it usually did. How do we know when δεῖπνον refers to an evening meal? A good indicator is context. For example, one might render the word as "banquet" in Rev. 19:9. See https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Revelation/chapter19/9

On the other hand, it's a bit strong to say 1 Cor. 11:20, 25 NWT "is an overtranslation." The translation "evening meal" falls squarely within the semantic domain of δεῖπνον; besides, Thiselton also professes that δεῖπνον normally did happen in the evening. Yet there's other reasons that Bowman's statement is misguided. However, to answer his challenge in this blog post, the timing of the meal is dictated by context and there are good reasons for understanding δεῖπνον as an "evening meal" in 1 Cor. 11:20, 25.

God As Spirit in Ancient Judaism? (John 4:24)

One Christian disciple recorded Jesus the Jew proclaiming that God is spirit: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24, ESV)

Is there an equivalent speech act uttered about YHWH (Jehovah) in the Hebrew Bible? What about Isaiah 31:3 (ESV)?

"The Egyptians are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord stretches out his hand,
the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together."

Notice the contrast made between humans and God, who is spirit. Admittedly, ancient Judaism likely did not make a sharp distinction between outward worship and inward spirituality, especially as we witness some people doing today: ("I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious"). Yet, neither was Jesus criticizing all Jewish rituals when he spoke the words at John 4:24, but he was suggesting that in the future, God's people would not chiefly focus on ritualistic externals nor would they emphasize a specific earthly city like Jerusalem. Why would this change occur? Because God is a spirit.

C.K. Barrett writes (The Gospel According to St. John, page 238): There is little corresponding teaching in the Old Testament (cf. however Isa. 31.3: The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh ( . . . basar), and not spirit (. . . ruah); significantly this contrast does not appear in the LXX): Spirit in the Old Testament is regularly not an order of being over against matter, but life-giving, creative activity, and there are passages (e.g. 7.38f.) where John uses the word in this sense.

Jesus was not condemning all outward expressions of worship: he was a son of the commandment, a devout Jew, and God's shaliach. The Lord knew that the Mosaic Law prescribed certain rituals, so he would not have called the entire Jewish system into question. But Jesus did call first-century Jews to repentance; furthermore, by Jesus' time, there was not one form of Judaism being practiced but many "Judaisms" as Jacob Neusner observed. First-century Judaism (to borrow a phrase) had a "dizzying diversity" of beliefs and practices.

So what did Jesus mean at John 4:23-24 when he proclaimed that God's true worshipers would worship him in spirit and in truth? Here is one suggestion given by Barrett (page 239):

It is impossible to separate the two notions (note that neither in v. 24 nor in v. 23 is EN repeated before ALHQEIA). EN PNEUMATI [dative-gk.] draws attention to the supernatural life that Christians enjoy, and EN ALHQEIA [dative-gk.] to the single basis of this supernatural life in Christ through whom God's will is faithfully fulfilled. That true worship is set over against idolatry, and over against a cult restricted to one sanctuary, is not more than incidental.

EGF:

John 3:6, Grammar, and Spiritual Rebirth

Greek: τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.

πνεῦμά is surely a noun, but I don't see how it could refer to "class" as opposed to quality in John 3:6 (see Wallace, GGBB, ). It's true that πνεῦμά potentially functions as a mass noun in certain contexts and as a count nouns in others. The phrase "mass noun" here refers to a nominal or substantive that names "undifferentiated stuff" such as sand, wood or bread although writers employ άρτος (Gk. for "bread") as a count noun in the GNT.

On the other hand, the phrase "count noun" refers to a nominal or substantive that names "differentiated stuff" such as books, beer (in certain contexts) or cats and dogs.

Finally, Trinitarians normally define the adnominal "qualitative" so that it imputes to a divine entity, G, the entire complex (set of properties) that are personally instantiated or exemplified by the God of Scripture--as they understand that deity.

It seems that those born from God's spirit or by means of the spirit of God are "spiritual" in the sense described by John 3:6. That is, God's spirit of holiness evidently reorients the bearing, disposition, dominant inclination or variegated propensities of those who are either "born again" or "born from above." See 1 John 3:9.

J. Ramsey Michaels (John in the New International Biblical Commentary series) suggests that Jesus is contrasting two distinct spheres of existence (i.e., "spirit" and "flesh") in John 3:6. However one construes the text, it seems that πνεῦμά is not a count noun in the verse, but likely a mass noun. Compare John 1:14.

Job 31:1--Tremper Longman III Commentary

"Job begins his speech by disavowing lust, specifically of a young woman. The OT does condemn lust through the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21), which includes the provision not to covet a neighbor’s wife. However, the OT does not specifically say that a man, even a married man, cannot desire an unmarried woman. After all, he could marry her. This observation leads some to suggest that Job is not disavowing leering at a human virgin, but at the divine virgin, Asherah.[684] I find this view unlikely, however. Idolatry is not seen as an issue in Job. He is never accused of idolatry. Besides, if we are right that Job is an Edomite (and not a Canaanite or Israelite), then Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, would not be a temptation. The best explanation is that Job is being extremely careful in his morality."

See Longman III, Job, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012, page 336.

ISBN: 978-1-4412-3865-8

EGF: Compare Matthew 5:28. See Job 31:9-10. I do not accept the idea that Job was an Edomite, but a thorough discussion of the issue can be found in David J.A. Clines. See https://books.google.com/books?id=Rl8qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT213&lpg=PT213&dq=job+not+an+edomite&source=bl&ots=q2_VmH78Bg&sig=ACfU3U2mbEkgobcTadMCobjid9OhhSzEeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9reWT3tjhAhXCmeAKHRQ8BqU4FBDoATAFegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=job%20not%20an%20edomite&f=false

Papal Infallibility: A Past Discussion

Dear Faulkner [original name changed],

I asked a question about Cyprian and Stephen that you either never answered or took a great amount of time to answer. So I submit my query again and I also refer you to the work Papal Infallibility (London: Faith Press, 1932) written by G.C. Coulton. In particular, see pages 14ff. Coulton provides evidence from the primary documents (Cyprian's Epistles) that neither Cyprian nor the majority of the African bishops in Carthage during his time knew anything about the Pope having universal ecclesiatical jurisdiction and furthermore these men also took issue with Pope Stephen's infallible "decision" concerning baptism.

I know that we're not yet finished with our protracted debate about the Bible canon, etc. But I have a burning question that just couldn't wait.

Recently I have been reading about the history of the Latin church under bishop Cyprian. I'm sure you're well aware of his struggle with bishop Stephen, and his disagreement with this overseer. I wonder, how do you feel about this episode? Why did Cyprian not feel a need to submit to the [supposed] pontiff of Rome, if all the "venerable fathers" have believed in papal supremacy throughout the ages of the EKKLHSIA?

In his book The Validity of Papal Claims, F.N. Oxenham explains the dispute on pp. 77-80. His remarks are worthy of note here:

"Stephen is said to have been the first Pope who claimed privileges of rule distinctly as successor of St. Peter, and therefore the reception which his claim met with is an important piece of evidence, more especially as the person chiefly concerned in rejecting that claim was so great a man as Cyprian of Carthage. Stephen did not indeed to assert the fully developed papal claims as they are asserted now; he was not, apparently, aware that he was 'infallible,' but he made an effort towards being supreme" (Oxenham 77-78).

The Purpose of 1 Corinthians 10:8

Our midweek meeting included a discussion of 1 Cor. 10:8, which mentions 23,000 dying because they committed fornication (sexual immorality). One thing that stands out concerning 1 Cor. 10:8 is that it reports 23,000 died, but the account from which it draws gives a different number: 24,000.

Putting this point aside for a moment, the question asked in our congregation this week was why Paul used this Hebrew Bible account in the first place. Why did he even mention this account? 1 Cor. 10:11 indicates that what happened to the ancient Israelites is a warning example for Christians, then and now. In fact, the organization points to the licentious conduct of the 1st century Corinthians as one reason for Paul's counsel. Is there another reason why Paul might have alluded to Numbers 25:9?

What about the fornication that was occurring in the Corinthian congregation. After all, there was a man, who had an incestuous relationship with his father's wife (apparently his stepmother), and Paul gives strong counsel regarding fornication in 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 18-20. Compare 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 12:21.

So there could be different reasons why Paul cited the instance of 23,000 dying in one day. More than a few proposals have been set forth to explain the seeming discrepancy, but one lesson we may still take away from Paul's words is the utter necessity of avoiding, eschewing, and repudiating sexual immorality.

Does the New Testament Support the Idea of Deaconesses? (1 Timothy 3:11)

I've always found Charles Ryrie's discussion of Rom. 16:1-2 in Basic Theology (pp. 419-420) to be helpful. Here are some gleanings from his work.

(1) The GUNAIKAS could be women "leaders" in the EKKLHSIA or simply wives of "deacons" or ministerial servants. Personally, I do not think that Paul had to explicitly qualify GUNAIKAS in order for us to know he had wives in mind and not women servants of the congregation since GUNH is used without qualification elsewhere in the NT to describe a married woman. Examples include Mt. 5:28, 31f; 1 Cor. 5:1; 7:2ff. BDAG has more examples.

(2) The women in 1 Tim. 3:11 are introduced by the word hWSAUTWS indicating that they too might hold positions in the EKKLHSIA. But this could merely be a way of transitioning the discussion in view of how the apostle employs hWSAUTWS in other places (Tit. 2:1-10).

(3) "A Greek word for deaconess does exist, but this is not used in the New Testament." (Ryrie)

(4) Also from Ryrie: "If verse 11 [1 Tim.] introduces a new office (that of deaconess), then why did not Paul finish listing the qualifications for deacons before introducing it? Instead, he continues with the list of qualifications for deacons in verses 12-13. This may indicate that he was referring to the deacon's wives in verse 11, rather than to a separate office in the church."

(5) Finally, Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, mentioning two Christian female MINISTRAE in the year 112 CE. It is not clear, however, whether these women were church assistants or not. No deaconess is mentioned in "any literature" until the third century. At that time, we find a reference in a document entitled Didascalia.

Theodoret of Cyrus on Daniel 4:13

So I continued looking in the vision of the night on my bed and, lo, a holy eir descended from heaven (v. 13). By eir he refers to the watcher, the meaning in Greek. By watcher he means an angel,110 thus bringing out its bodiless form: what is clad in a body is subject to sleeping, whereas what is rid of a body is superior to the need for sleeping. So he means, I saw an angel, bodiless in nature, who descended from heaven.

Footnote 110: It is not that Theodoret goes behind his text to cite the Hebrew form ir: he finds it thus in Theodotion. This is the only use of the word in the Old Testament in reference to an angel, though it is (according to Alexander Di Lella, “Daniel,” NJBC, 413) frequently so used in Jewish apocryphal works and at Qumran.

Physical Versus Spiritual Man (Person)--Outline for a Talk

A physical man/person is fleshly-minded, more concerned with prestige and worldly pursuits rather than spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Such individuals practice works of the flesh mentioned at Galatians 5:19-21. Unfortunately, a number of Christians in the early Corinthian congregation gave way to fleshly-mindedness by promoting divisions, taking their brothers and sisters to court or they self-indulgently lived for food, drink, and sex (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:1-10).

Conversely, what qualities characterize a spiritual person? See 1 Cor. 2:15-16.

Instead of being fleshly-minded, a spiritual man/person is God-oriented, that is, inclined toward God. Spiritual persons try to acquire Jehovah's thinking on matters; they strive to imitate him (Eph. 5:1-2) and reflect the fruitage of the spirit listed at Galatians 5:22-23. You know these qualities by heart, no doubt. Yet how are we doing when it comes to personal application?

Another way to be a spiritual person is by having the mind of Christ, that is, possessing the same mental disposition that Jesus had (1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5).

Personal question: How can we live as spiritual persons each day of our lives?

Three areas include our use of technology, the field ministry, and how we manifest the spirit's fruitage.

There is much that we can learn about being spiritual persons as we study Paul's first inspired letter to the Corinthians.

Acts 8:1 (Aspects of the Passage)

Greek: Σαῦλος δὲ ἦν συνευδοκῶν τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ διωγμὸς μέγας ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις· πάντες δὲ διεσπάρησαν κατὰ τὰς χώρας τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Σαμαρίας πλὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων. (WH)

Translations: "Saul agreed with putting him to death. On that day a severe persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the land of Judea and Samaria." (HCSB)

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (ASV)

"And Saul agreed completely with killing him. Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria." (NET)

"Saul, for his part, approved of his murder. On that day great persecution arose against the congregation that was in Jerusalem; all except the apostles were scattered throughout the regions of Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a." (NWT 2013)

See 1 Maccabees 11:24.

Craig Keener Comments for Acts 8:1: The “great persecution” (διωγμὸς μέγας) that came on the church may recall Stephen’s recent claim that his accusers’ predecessors “persecuted” (ἐδίωξαν) the prophets (Acts 7:52; cf. Luke 11:49); it also fulfills Jesus’s prediction (Luke 11:49; 21:12, διώξουσιν).[16] It prepares the way for the next occurrence of a cognate term, describing Saul’s own activity (Acts 9:4–5; cf. 22:4, 7–8; 26:11, 14–15); Luke must introduce the idea here to explain the scattering of believers and their message (8:4; picked up in 11:19), which provides the backdrop for Philip’s mission (8:5). Saul’s “approval” (8:1a) belongs with the preceding paragraph, continuing the thought of 7:58, as mentioned above.[17] Saul’s “approval” of Stephen’s execution (8:1; 22:20)[18] was no less culpable than that of those who stood in continuity with the prophets’ murderers in Luke 11:48 (the only other Lukan reference, to which Luke may allude by using this term; cf. Rom 1:32; 1 Clem. 35.6).[19] Paul clearly did more than approve during the rest of the persecution, however, and he probably participated in Stephen’s death as more than simply an onlooker. He likely belonged to the synagogue faction that opposed Stephen (Acts 6:9; 9:11). Clothing was placed at his feet (7:58), possibly (though not certainly) suggesting his authority (4:35, 37; 5:1), and he quickly emerges as the movement’s leader (8:3).

Robertson's Word Picture in the New Testament: A great persecution (διωγμος μεγας). It was at first persecution from the Sadducees, but this attack on Stephen was from the Pharisees so that both parties are now united in a general persecution that deserves the adjective "great." See on Mt 13:21 for the old word διωγμος from διωκω, to chase, hunt, pursue, persecute.

Updated Version of KEFALH Discussion (1 Corinthians 11:3)

There is still a burning question in New Testament studies about the potential signification of KEFALH qua a scriptural metaphor. Some prominent lexical suggestions offered by those professionals who analyze ancient Greek texts have been "source," "ruler" or "authority over" (1 Corinthians 11:3). See Peter Cotterell and Max Turner's Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1989), 141-145; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998). Translating KEFALH as "source" often results in attempts to mitigate any notion of hierarchy for a number of possible reasons. But what is most important to me involves what the data suggest from the GNT and other relevant sources. Turner and Cotterell review GNT examples such as Colossians 2:19; 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. They subsequently write: "Now contextually it is by no means certain that Col 2:19 presents Christ as the origin, rather than as the Lord of the Church, but clearly it would considerably weaken the thesis if the sense 'source' was part of the lexical meaning of the Greek word KEFALH ('head'); that is, if it were one of its established senses" (141). But is "source" one of the established senses for KEFALH? After discussing LXX and Classical examples where the word is employed by ancient writers, Turner and Cotterell conclude:

"In other words, as far as we can tell, 'source' or 'origin' was not a conventional sense of the word KEFALH in Paul's time. This does not preclude the possibility that Paul himself began to use the word in such a way, but we would need very strong evidence to support such a view, and in our judgment nothing like such strength of evidence is forthcoming" (145).

While, as Cotterell and Turner show, there does not appear to be enough evidence to decide in favor of "source" being one of the lexical senses for KEFALH in Paul's time, we do have synchronic attestation for the meaning "ruler" or "authority over." Paul apparently used KEFALH in this way, when he penned these inspired words to the Ephesians: KAI PANTA hUPETAXEN hUPO TOUS PODAS AUTOU KAI AUTON EDWKEN KEFALHN hUPER PANTA THi EKKLHSIAi (Eph. 1:22).

Now the primary text under consideration is 1 Cor. 11:3: QELW DE hUMAS EIDENAI hOTI PANTOS ANDROS hH KEFALH hO XRISTOS ESTIN KEFALH DE GUNAIKOS hO ANHR KEFALH DE TOU XRISTOU hO QEOS. According to this passage, every man has a head which is Christ, and every woman also has a "head" which is the man. Christ himself has a "head," who is almighty God; the operative term here is KEFALH with the meaning "head."

In order to appreciate the full significance of 1 Cor. 11:3, I think it is imperative to construe KEFALH in the appropriate manner. Louw-Nida point out that the semantic domains for KEFALH respectively are (1) the literal head of the body;(2a) a superior;(2b) units;(2c) the "head" cornerstone;(2d) to "have one's head covered";(2e) "to lie down to rest";(2f) to "have courage."(2g) to denote "responsibility."(2h) to "cause to be ashamed."[The aforementioned divisions are mine, even though the categories represent those delineated by Louw-Nida. For a further examination of this issue, consult L-N Vol. II, p. 141 under "KEFALH."]

My purpose in listing the respective semantic domains from L-N is to point out that we must not confuse usage (1) with usage (2a) although the two fields obviously are parasitic upon one another. In other words, I would contend that Paul is describing the superiority of God over Christ as opposed to suggesting that he describes an anthropological relationship between God and Christ. At least, that is how I see it. L-N is normally a reliable source when it comes to how Greek writers use terms in a particular context. It says a lot when we note that this lexicon makes the aforesaid comments about 1 Cor. 11:3.

Two other texts that we might bring up, however, are Eph. 5:23 and Col. 1:18:

hOTI ANHR ESTIN KEFALH THS GUNAIKOS hWS KAI hO XRISTOSKEFALH THS EKKLHSIAS AUTOS SWTHR TOU SWMATOS (Eph5:23).

KAI AUTOS ESTIN hH KEFALH TOU SWMATOS THS EKKLHSIAShOS ESTIN hH ARXH PRWTOTOKOS EK TWN NEKRWN hINAGENHTAI EN PASIN AUTOS PRWTEUWN (Col 1:18).

In the first passage, it seems that KEFALH is qualified by AUTOS SWTHR TOU SWMATOS. Paul apparently professes that Christ is the KEFALH ("head") of the Christian EKKLHSIA by virtue of his God-given soteriological function (SWTHR TOU SWMATOS). That is, he serves as KEFALH by virtue of being the Savior of God's congregation (Acts 5:31). Now if I am construing the syntactical and semantic relationships properly here, then KEFALH possibly denotes "source" (Gordon Fee) in Eph. 5:23, although I personally would not want to rule out the notion of supremacy in light of Eph. 5:21-22: "Be in subjection to one another in fear of the Christ. Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord . . ."

Nevertheless, Col. 1:18 is more comprehensible when one construes KEFALH as "has authority over." Richard B. Hays adds: "Even if Paul is thinking here primarily of man as the source of woman rather than authority over woman, this still serves as warrant for a claim about his ontological preeminence over her, as vv. 7-9 show" (Richard Hays, 1 Corinthians, page 184). I am not sure about Hay's "ontological preeminence" language since I think it is based on potentially questionable presuppositions about ontology in general. Nevertheless, Hays shows what appears to be unavoidable from a "natural" reading of the text. Paul is saying that men have some type of preeminence over women and it also follows that God is preeminent over Christ, although Hays wants to argue that God does not have any "ontological preeminence" over Christ later in his discussion.

Having stated the foregoing, I want to provide some evidence that KEFALH in 1 Cor 11:3 does signify superiority of rank. BDAG says that the term, when employed metaphorically,may denote:(1) A being of high status (Iren. 1, 5, 3; Hippol.Ref. 7, 23, 3).(a) "in the case of living beings, to denote superiorrank." Marion Soards (1 Corinthians in the NIBC Series) discusses the views of G. Fee and N. Watson, who both argue that KEFALH means "source" in 1 Cor 11:3. But Soards then supplies the following caveat on page 229 of his commentary:

"Nevertheless, the interpretive debate is not settled. J. A. Fitzmeyer ('Another Look at KEFALH in 1 Corinthians 11:3,' NTS 35 [1989], pp. 503-11) examines the LXX and Philo alongside Paul to argue 'head' could be understood as 'authority over' another person; also J. A. Fitzmeyer, 'KEFALH in 1 Corinthians 11:3,' Int 47 (1993), pp. 52-59. In a creative interpretive essay, S. E. McGinn ('EXOUSIAN EXEIN EPI THS KEFALHS: 1 Cor 11:10 and the Ecclesial Authority Woman,' List 31 [1996], pp. 91-104) argues that the charismatic gift of prophecy gave the women who were endowed with this gift an authority over their heads--the men--because of the Spirit's presence and power at work in their contributions to the congregation's worship."D. A. Carson also reports the following in Exegetical Fallacies (2nd Edition): "Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of KEFALH . . . 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 KEFALH . . . connotes 'authority'" (pp. 37-38).

Galatians 5:19-21 ("Wild Parties")--Various Commentators

Greek: φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.

ESV: Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Tom Schreiner's Comments:

Two words are used to designate a dissolute lifestyle where one remains unconstrained by moral norms: “drunkenness” (μέθαι) and “carousing” (κῶμοι). We find a similar pairing in Rom 13:13, and 1 Pet 4:3 is also similar to what we find in Galatians. Those who give themselves over to revelry and wild parties demonstrate that they are still under the control of the old Adam rather than living in the new age inaugurated by Jesus Christ. The phrase “things like these” indicates that the vice list is partial and does not represent an exhaustive list of sins.

Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

With the final two words of the list, Paul returns to sins characteristic of the Gentile world of his day. “Drunkenness” (μέθαι, methai) may refer simply to inebriation, but as BDAG (625) notes, the proximity of this word with κῶμοι (kōmoi, orgies) both here and in Rom. 13:13 may suggest the more specific nuance of “drinking bout” (the plural has a singular sense). This last word (κῶμοι) originally referred to a festal procession in honor of a Greek god and then came to be used more broadly for a feast or banquet. In Biblical Greek, however, the word always has the negative sense of “excessive feasting,” always involving too much drinking and often sexual liberties. A text from 2 Maccabees describing the activities of Greeks who desecrated the Jerusalem temple gives a sense of the word: “For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling [κώμων] by the Gentiles, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit” (2 - (2 -Macc. 6:4; see also Wis. 14:23; Rom. 13:13; 1 Pet. 4:3). The plural form is again used, with “wild parties” (NLT) perhaps catching the idea fairly well (NIV and ESV “orgies” is too specifically sexual). Peter uses this word, along with two others that Paul lists in this context, to describe the pagan lifestyle characteristic of Gentiles before conversion: “For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery [ἀσέλγεια], lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing [κώμοις] and detestable idolatry [εἰδωλολατρίαις]” (1 Pet. 4:3).

Ronald Y.K. Fung (Galatians):

Kōmoi is variously rendered as “carousings” (NASB), “revellings” (AV) and “orgies” (NEB). Kōmos (singular) is a natural companion of “drunkenness” (cf. Rom. 13:13), a characteristic feature of the pagan way of life (1 Pet. 4:3), and a concrete example of putting “pleasure in the place of God” (so NEB, 2 Tim. 3:4, Gk. philēdonos). This catalog of vices is prefaced by hatina (“the kind of”) and followed by kai ta homoia (“and the like”) both of which show that the enumeration is representative and not exhaustive.⁹⁸ Many sins mentioned elsewhere in Paul’s letters⁹⁹ are missing from this list. Of the fifteen items mentioned, the first three and the last two (groups [a] and [d]) are sins committed in the sphere of the body, but the rest (groups [b] and [c]) “might well be committed by disembodied spirits,” thus showing that “the deeds of the flesh” are not necessarily physical or sensual, but embrace spiritual vices as well.