gengwall

Another flaw in reliance on the English idoims is that they are not anatomically based. When we say “head of the company” we don’t get an image of a head and a body. In a sense, in English, “head” has a completely non-anatomical usage and it is that specific usage that is employed when we talk about the “head of the company”, et al.

The opposite is true in almost all of Paul’s metaphors. They all parallel the human relationship with an anatomical relationship. Because of that, we really need to throw the English idoms out the window and start from scratch. We need to examine if there is a hierarchical authority structure within our anatomical body. Now, some may say that the head is “in charge” of the body. But Paul never even implies that. Paul’s usage is clearly relational, not hierarchical. Paul is never trying to teach us that certain parts of the body are superior to others. And when the Corinthians apparently attempted to employ a hierarchy within their body, Paul quickly put such a notion to rest.

So, on a number of levels, we fall into significant error when considering the English idioms related to “head of…” We fail too when we look at the Hebrew idioms (and any Greek translations of them) that parallel our English ones. Again, their is no anatomical relation present so they can’t be used to define Paul who very specifically is employing anatomical themes.