Household: “Head” as Function, Representation, and Elevation, and the Centrality of Status

So what can we say about "head" as a metaphor in Greek? At least two things.

First, "head" is not used to signify "rule over" or "have authority over," although it clearly is used on occasion with regard to people who rule and have authority. It sometimes is used to indicate a differential in these qualities. The one who is "head over/of" in authority has authority that is "higher," preeminent, and of greater status or magnitude than others. The head metaphor is a statement about relative position (just as the head is relatively higher than the rest of the body) and could be used with any human quality that can be ranked. For example, Barry Bonds is head over/of all baseball players in hitting home runs. Head indicates the magnitude of the quality is greater or higher, but it is not the quality itself. The head is figuratively the summit, not a body part that controls or rules the body.

Second, I believe there are three ways the metaphor is employed in the New Testament based on three different ways of perceiving a physical head. We can view the physical head in terms of function, representation, and elevation.

Function – According to the Greeks, the anatomical function of the head was to provide life-giving sustenance and nurture to the rest of the body. It is the origination point from which the rest of the body springs up.

Representation – The head is the body's most visible and physically distinguishing part. The face and head are the primary means of identifying a whole person. The head represents the entire body to the world.

Elevation – The head is at the body's top, the highest point. In Greek, high elevation signifies prominence, preeminence, and importance.

I believe it is possible for any given instance of the head metaphor to have more than one of these connotations in play simultaneously. We will see this as we visit the New Testament passages. Context is critical in each case. But before going to these passages, I want to refresh our memories concerning status in the Greco-Roman world.

We Westerners in the twenty-first century quickly identify political power and authority as signs of status. Wealth is the other great measure of status. For the Greco-Roman world, status was everything, but status was not primarily measured in political power and wealth. It was measured in number of clients obtained through charis. Charis is a process where you did something for someone so significant they could not possibly repay you. You became the patron, and your gift recipient became your client. You worked to expand your connections and influence so you could do things for your clients that they could not do for themselves. In response to your patronage, they would do your bidding whenever you needed something of them. Whatever clients your clients might develop become your clients as well, by extension. How big a pyramid of clients you had established your status. Political power and wealth could be instrumental in developing status, but they were means, not ends. (See Patronage and the Dance of Grace)

Charis is the word we interpret as "grace." It is the word Paul used to describe what God has done for us in Christ. Through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, Christ has atoned for us and made us "at one" with God and each other. It is an extravagant gift we cannot repay. God is our patron, and we are God's clients called to do his mission in the world. Because of what Jesus has done in laying down his very life for us, the most costly gift of all, he is elevated to the highest status. He is the firstborn son of a new creation. Yet paradoxically, what Jesus asks of us as his clients is to have his same disregard for status. The way to God's right and left hand is by putting everyone else first. The way to high status is to treat everyone else as if their status is higher than yours.

The Emperor was considered to have the highest status in the Empire. Christians worshiped a crucified non-Roman, the opposite end of the status spectrum. I believe this inversion of status plays prominently in some head metaphor passages in the New Testament.

Now, on to the New Testament passages.

Series Index

Comments

[Christian]

Good Day :) God is Love, May you experience God's Love this Day, may we really learn to Praise him in all things :) Lets Share God's Love today :) You are Loved!

[scott gray]

here's my understanding of grace--

a person who is drowning, or floundering, is lifted up through the 'grace' action of another to a place where there is relief, even if only temporary, of the drowning or floundering. one gets a chance to rest, have access to new resources, discern, problem-solve, and decision-make, in order to avoid the quagmire, or to reengage the quagmire from a new position or understanding. at its very best, the 'grace-lift' enables one to do the same 'grace-lifting' for others.

while such grace may come from 'nobless oblige,' it's not necessary to 'lift' from a higher hierarchical position. such 'grace-lifts' may come from a peer, or a subordinate, or a good samaritan.

by talking about repayment, one imples that it either can be, or can't be; and then whether it is, or isn't repaid. this 'quid pro quo' approach places limits on grace that my original metaphor need not have.

peace--

scott

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks Scott. I think Paul clearly modifies the notion of Grace. It becomes refocused as the outpouring of other-centered love instead of a startegy to achieve higher status. I agree that grace need not comer from a higher hierarchical position nor must it be given in pursuit of one. Nevertheless, Paul's terminology comes straight from the common Greco-Roman custom.

[scott gray]

mwk--

so paul changed/modified the understanding of the schema 'grace' for his readers/hearers from something they were familiar with, to a 'bigger picture.' this expansion of a schema is, in my opinion, the very core of enlightenment, and rich conversion. it's what each of us tries to do in our writings and in our best conversations, yes?

what other schemata do you think paul moved in his writing from something familiar to the reader/hearer (other greco roman understandings), to a larger picture?

[Michael W. Kruse]

Scott, I hadn't really thought about cataloging Paul's teaching in that way so I'd have to think on that a bit.

Certainly this whole series about fictive family is one instance. Caesar attempted portray himself as the son of God who brought peace to the world. He held himself up as the paterfamilias of the Empire with Empire as his family. The imagery of the NT is of God as paterfamilias with Jesus as the son of God who becomes our brother so that we may become co-regents with him as siblings in God’s family.

[scott gray]

mwk--

thanks.
just started reading your household series. great stuff--thanks for that, too.