hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 109
unity, from which the body can be built up to maturity, even as the various
other gifts (i.e., social functionaries) accomplish similar goals.71 christ’s
headship need not be conceived of as a prosthesis, but as an essential
feature that holds the body together. in terms of establishing some func-
tional value within the church, christ’s appointment as head is equivalent
to the other gifts given to the body. christ’s oneness with the church is
emphasized in his bodily function as a specific member, even as the other
members are inherently co-ordinate in ephesians 4 and 1 corinthians 12.
from this perspective, the interpretive tensions that accompany “source”
or “authority” schemas can be avoided.72 the perspective also pushes back
against cosmic and universal understandings of christ and the church in
these two letters that articulate christ’s headship in cosmic proportions.
christ’s relationship to the church is an organic one that exhibits partner-
ship, not necessarily that of authority or overlordship. With that in view,
the description of the body and gifts in eph 4:11–16 looks most similar
to the description in 1 corinthians 12.73 in both cases, individual body
parts represent gifts given to the church (including social functionaries
such as apostles and prophets), which are given to engender unity and to
build the body to maturity.74 certainly, christ’s position is not minimized
(the lofty christological vision of col 1:15–20 is maintained), yet his role
is active and participatory vis-à-vis the appointment of gifts and the join-
ing together of other body members.75 this point of view is continued
in the context of the household code where christ’s headship relation to
71 thus, shkul can suggest that the body language explicates “social unity, ideological
conformity and lifestyle of holiness characterized by ingroup orientation and organic rela-
tionship with its other members, leaders and the spiritual head” (minna shkul, Reading
Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text [lnts 408; london: t&t clark,
2009], 191).
72 see Howard, “Head/Body metaphors,” 354, who identifies some concerns with the
“authority” or “ruler” readings, and grudem, “ ‘source’ or ‘authority over’?” 38–59, who
proposes that the “source” interpretation was unknown to greek writers. it is notable that
gordley’s reading of the colossian christ-hymn in light of some proposed sources and
background suggests that the emphasis of head terminology “is not on organic connection
or similarity of substance,” but upon pre-eminence (see matthew e. gordley, The Colossian
Hymn in Context: An Exegesis in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Hymnic and Epistolary
Conventions [Wunt 2.228; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2007], 219). While this may be the
case in other texts that utilize head terminology, the emphasis on the body-head relation
throughout colossians and ephesians seems to indicate otherwise, as my analysis shows.
73 as an interesting aside, this places the potentially earliest and latest manifestations
of the body imagery in closest conjunction with one another.
74 shkul’s reading of the social entrepreneurship in ephesians sees “both leadership
structures and the requirement of cohesive participation in the ministry of ‘christ’ as
divine gifts” (shkul, Reading Ephesians, 196).
75 see shkul, Reading Ephesians, 197.