110 gregory p. fewster
the church/body is identified with the husband-wife relationship. this is,
again, an inherently functional relationship where oneness is emphasized
(note especially the reference to the “one flesh” concept of genesis 2)76
with an end to maturity and moral purity.77 this imagery connects closely
with 1 cor 11:3 where Paul posits a headship relation between christ and
man and then man and woman (husband and wife?). interestingly, these
references precede rather than follow the more developed body language
in 1 corinthians 12.78 this may suggest that the body image, and the body/
head images are not a well-defined concept but consist rather of loose
associations, enabling such diverse application throughout romans and 1
corinthians as well as in colossians and ephesians. in spite of such loose
association of applications, there is striking cohesiveness in terms of the
head’s functionality. the head/body relationship emphasizes organic
unity and is functional insofar as the head enables such unity and spiri-
tual and moral development.
Conclusion
the interpretation of canonical pseudepigrapha has been limited by cer-
tain historical-critical assumptions that force a stark disjunction between
the disputed and undisputed letters. the canonical response, while inden-
tifying methodological and applicational shortcomings of the historical
approach, has been unable to fully correct the issues they so quickly iden-
tify. this dynamic is appreciable in historical and canonical interpretations
of the head/body motif in colossians and ephesians. i have attempted to
push the canonical response further by understanding the hermeneuti-
cal issue of canonical pseudepigrapha from the perspective of authorship
theory. in so doing, i have emphasized the author as a functional category,
76 Westfall argues that the reference to genesis 2 may elicit a “source” understanding of
κεφαλή, given that eve was produced from adam’s side. adam thus functions as her source
(“great metaphor!” 587). i am inclined to see the text of ephesians 5 as emphasizing one-
ness, to the exclusion of source.
77 lee-Barnewall suggests that the moral responsibility assigned to husbands reverses
typical expectations evoked by head/body imagery in the ancient world (michelle lee-
Barnewall, “turning ΚΕΦΑΛΗ on its Head: the rhetoric of reversal in ephesians 5:21–33,”
in stanley e. Porter and andrew W. Pitts [eds.], Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Cul-
ture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament [early christianity in its Hellenistic
context 1; tent 9; leiden: Brill, 2013], 608–12). However, her emphasis on determining
the meaning of κεφαλή in terms of “source” or “authority” is peripheral to the point i am
trying to make.
78 though compare neyrey, Paul, 135 who emphasizes the notion of authority in 1 cor 11:3.