pinklight

I believe that the head – body metaphor should be interpreted to mean that God shares his nature with Christ, man with woman, and Christ with man. This is Paul’s cosmology. We share a common nature.

Sue,

I think your work is the best to help people understand the depths of what we are dealing with when it comes to prejudice interpretations of Grudem and co.

And I think that this understanding of kephale is fine for 1 Co 11 (with “aner” being used for “mankind”?), but I do have to say that there is no head/body metaphor in 1 Co 11. Just kephale – no mention of body, and this is because Christ is not in union with the Godhead the same way that a man or woman or he and the church are in union. His union belongs to the church (the body), not the Godhead. And mankind or even just males can’t be the body of Christ either. As far as I know the head/body metaphor is only used of a certain kind of “union” (husband and wife) – not husband and children or husband and home or Godhead and Christ, or Christ and mankind etc…

In my opinion, Grudem’s been had as seen by the work you’ve done. Many know it. Thanks for all you’ve done! And I don’t really concern myself with Grudem’s mess anymore because of the work you’ve done. So when this kind of discussion arises I just sit back and read, cause Grudem’s already been had. (It’s been shown that his work is not reliable, full of error and he is not a Greek scholar anyway.)

Oh yeah, and to add to #28, Mark you never did provide contextual support for “God” in the passage to mean “the Father”. I know we went over this quit awhile ago… I bring this up because the bottom line is the context in which any word is found in. We have contextual support that Paul’s uasge was for the Godhead!! But again, you don’t have contextual supprot for your interpretation. I’ll leave it again as I already did in comment #28 – Context is King and especialy since the scripture themselves, we believe are the inspired word of God – not any lexicons.

I need more coffee!