Endnotes to Appendix 1 Part B
59. This translation is quoted from Artemidorus Daldianus, The Interpretation
of Dreams (= Oneirocritica), translated by Robert J. While (Park Ridge, NJ: Nooyes, 1975), pp.
34-35; the Greek text is found in Artemidori Daldiani Oneirocriticon Libre V, ed. Robert A. Pack
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1963), pp. 43-45.
60. Although Payne uses incorrect reasoning to derive the meaning source from these
uses in Artemidorus, it is additionally disappointing to see that he quoted this very obscure text (accessible
only at highly specialized libraries) to show instances where Artemidorus said that the head symbolized
the source of something but did not inform the reader that in the very same section he quoted (Oneirocritica
1.35) Artemidorus also said that the head symbolized the superior of a sailor and the master of a slave,
and that the head was the master of the body -all meanings that Payne denies.
Moreover, in order to support his contention that the ancient Greek world through the time of Paul
commonly believed that the heart, not the head, was the center of emotions and spirit, the central governing
place of the body (pp. 119-120), Payne cites only one ancient author, Aristotle, and then cites the Oxford
Classical Dictionary article on Anatomy and Physiology as saying about Aristotle that, having found the
brain to be devoid of sensation, he concluded that it could not be associated with it. The function of the
brain was to keep the heart from overheating the blood (Payne, p. 120. n. 26, citing OCD, 59). What Payne
does not tell the reader is that the immediately preceding two sentences in the OCD article say that this
view of Aristotle's was contrary to the commonly held view in the ancient world: Among the noteworthy erros
of Aristotle is his refusal to attach importance to the brain. Intelligence he placed in the heart. This
was contrary to the views of some of his medical contemporaries, contrary to the popular view, and contrary
to the doctrine of the Timaeus (OCD, 59, italics mine).
So in the use of both Artemidorus and the OCD Payne has given misleading and selective quotations, and
has done so from technical works that will not be checked by even one in a thousand readers of such a
widely-circulated and popularly written book.
61. Peter Cotterel and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), p. 144, concur with this analysis:
Least helpful of the types of evidence advanced, is the claim that amongst the ancients
the head was often regarded as the source of a variety of substances and influences pertinent to life. The
claim itself need not be doubted, but how is it relevant? Just because, say, Artemidorus… maintains that
the head is the source of light and life for the body does not mean that the writer considered source to
be a sense of the word head. Our employers are the source of our income, books are the source of our knowledge,
and the good, well-watered land the source of our food, but no one in their right mind would suggest that
source is a sense of the words employer, books, or land. Such would be a classic case of the confusion
between the sense of a word and adjunct properties of the thing-in-the-world the word denotes.
62. See discussion above, p. 433.
63. Systematic Theology (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970 [reprint])
1:460-462 (italics mine).
64. Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1907), 342.
65. It is troubling therefore to find the evangelical feminists Richard and Catherine
Kroeger writing the article "Subordinationism in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," ed. Walter Elwell
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), and asserting in the first sentence that subordinationism is
a doctrine which assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or the Holy Spirit within the
Trinity. Condemned by numerous church councils, this doctrine has continued in one form or another throughout
the history of the church (p. 1058, emphasis mine). When the Kroegers add the phrase or role to their
definition they condemn all orthodox Christology from the Nicene Creed onward and thereby condemn a teaching
that Charles Hodge says has been a teaching of the Church universal.
A similar misunderstanding is found in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming H. Revell, 1987), who says, If we define head as 'authority over,' then 1 Corinthians 11:3 can
mean that there is a dominant to subordinate hierarchy within the Trinity, a position that does violence
to the equality of the Persons of the Godhead. Early in its history, orthodox Christianity took a firm
stand against any teaching that would make Christ a subordinate figure. To say that God is somehow authoritative
over Christ erodes the Savior's full divinity and puts a Christian on dangerous theological ground (pp.
193-194). And Katherine Kroeger says in her appendix to this same book, The heretics would argue that
although the Son is of the same substance as the Father, He is under subjection (p. 283). But these statements
by Hull and Kroeger are simply false. (A strong warning against this theological tendency of evangelical
feminism is seen in Robert Letham's recent article, "The Man-Woman Debate: Theological Comment," Westminster
Theological Journal 52:1 [Spring 1990], pp. 65-78.)
Such an attempt to shift the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been held through
the history of the church does not appear to be accidental, however, for the fact that God the Son can
be eternally equal to God the Father in deity and in essence, but subordinate to the Father in authority,
cuts at the heart of the feminist claim that a subordinate role necessarily implies lesser importance or
lesser personhood. (Surprisingly, Millard Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology [Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986], p. 161, Similarly his Christian Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983-85],
338, 668, expresses a position similar to the Kroegers here, seeing subordination in role as non-eternal,
but rather a temporary activity of members of the Trinity for a period of ministry [similarly, his Christian
Theology, pp. 338, 698].)
66. In Mickelsen and Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the Bible, pp. 134-154.
67. Pages 447-448.
From Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood edited by Piper J and Grudem W, p. 426-32.
Copyright ©1997 by Crossway Books. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a ministry of Good News
Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois 60187,
Download for personal use only.