Kapsalis,
Maria-Fotini Polidoulis. St. John Chrysostom's Interpretation of Kεφαλή in 1
Corinthians 11:3-16. Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Vol. 49 Issue 3. 2004.
321-356. [internet] accessed 17 July, 2013. Available at
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=11&sid=7d6c3f3b-a5d5-4acf-8f26-73feb1ecd3ea%40sessionmgr198&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rlh&AN=32139902.
I
found Kapsalis’ take on the kephale debate interesting. She uses John
Chrysostom's writings, particularly his Genesis One and commentary of First
Corinthians, to gain a perspective on what the early church father thought
about male headship. While I did not always agree with her interpretation of
Chrysostom’s writings, I do believe that she gave a fair treatment to a
controversial topic, and perhaps showed most important of all that the debate
is not a twenty-first century creation. If Chrysostom (AD 347-AD 407) wrestled
with the topic of male headship, should it be so surprising that modern
theologians still debate the issue? Kapsalis seems to take a view that divides
the authority of male headship between physical and spiritual realms. I will
admit that throughout the modern debates I have read concerning this issue, the
spiritual divide has never seemed that important. The pericope found in First
Corinthians 11:3-16 deals more with a physical, day-to-day life of the church
issue. To present this subject as being an eternal issue, that is to say that
male headship will exist in eternity, is beyond the scope of the passage
itself. I have never read (to my knowledge) the idea that men will dominate
women in eternity. In fact I think that is where the liberals miss the boat
with Galatians 3:28. Galatians speaks of eternity, First Corinthians speaks of
the present. Kapsalis’s take on Chysostom’s writings is that he taught that
kephlae constituted a preeminence for the man but did not support an
ontological male superiority. Male headship then is seen by the church father
as temporal and equality as eternal.
