4. The Capital and Recapitulative Functions of Christ

Central to the Christological vision of Ephesians is the ανακεΦαλαι?ρι? of all things in Christ (1:10). The Greek verb is rare in secular literature, and does not occur outside of literary sources; in meaning it is scarcely different from κεΦαλαιουν. 136 The word has given rise to much discussion, and the translation given usually reflects an interpretation: instaurare (vulgate), restaurare (Ambrosiaster, Victorinus, Augustine), 137 re-establishment. 138 The best translation would seem to be recapitulation, as it conveys the presumed and probable etymology of the word without prejudicing the meaning. 139

The common interpretation is to link the recapitulative function of Christ with his function as head of the Church (1:22), an interpretation stemming from Chrysostom, who unites the meanings of "to sum up" and "to place at the head". 140 This meaning of the word is maintained even when there is a clear awareness that the immediate stem is not κεΦαλ? but κεΦ?λαιον. 141 This is understandable, for the theme of Christ-κεΦαλ? is a common one in Paul and in Ephesians, and it was taken up, commented on at length and popularized by Chrysostom. 142

There are two problems in connection with the word. The first is to maintain a distinction between κεΦαλ? and κεΦ?λαιον, in spite of the tendency of history to combine them. The second is to understand the real force of the prepositional prefix ανα-. Some commentators understand the preposition to mean one by one. 143 Others understand it to signify again. 144 This latter leads to an interpretation in terms of restoration, a Pauline and biblical theme: cosmic restoration and general reintegration as consequent on human salvation, given that it is sin, both angelic and human, which brought about the disintegration of creation. 145

In his study on the meaning of the term, Dufort 146 insists that the distinction between κεΦαλ? and κεΦ?λαιον be maintained, for it is conscious in Paul Schlier 147 links 1:10 and 1:22 to maintain the union of the concepts in spite of the distinction of the words. Dufort, however, uses the close proximity of the ανακεφαλαι?ρι? of 1:10 and the κεΦαλ? motif of 1:22, in the light of the fact that there is no conscious linking of them in the text, as the basis of his assertion that Paul was aware of the distinction and intended it.

The term, Dufort insists, is to be understood from its use by the orators, a sense used by Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Damascene and Photius in reference to the use of the term in Rom 13:9. This sense is central to the interpretation of Pauline recapitulation in Irenaeus: while he does not set out to give an exposition of Pauline recapitulation theology as such, he makes use of the term and the concept as a central theme in his own theology. It is clear from his development that he understood ?να- in a distributive sense, and that his vision of recapitulation was cosmic: ανακεφαλαι?ρι? is the realization in time of the eternal plan of God; it is a prolongation of the first creation, an unfolding of all that was contained in germ in the first creation, the crowning of long preparations. Not all would agree, however, that in Irenaeus the eschatological sense prevails over the soteriological.

Dufort finds the terminal or recapitulative function of Christ to be implied in the "for him" [ει? αυτον] of Rom 11:36 and Col 1:16. The capital function of Christ is mentioned in Col 1:18, but Dufort underscores the word κα? at the beginning of the verse (also at the beginning of verse 17) as being cumulative, and hence disjunctive.

When Paul makes use of the Christ-κεφαλ? motif, he rarely fails to unite it with σωμα (cf. Eph 1:22-23; 4:15-16; Col 1:18): the capital function is relative and does not extend beyond the mystical body, whereas the recapitulative or terminal function is absolute and extends to all creation.

The capital function of Christ is illustrated through the Christ-κεφαλ? motif. A derivative of the Hebrew ???, known to the Septuagint, this meaning of κεφαλ? is foreign to secular Greek. 148 Schlier 149 sees the eschatological orientation of the Church contained also in the κεφαλ?-theme, in the growth of the Body towards the Head, so that the Head is always the heavenly goal. He links this with the Gnostic redeemer myth as a development of the aeon conception.

If the ανακεφαλαι?ρι? in Christ refers to the recapitulative function and not to the capital function which he exercises, his primacy over all creation should perhaps be seen in terms of his resurrection and enthronement (cf. 1:21-22). This cosmic primacy over all means, a fortiori, his primacy over the Church, for this is his Body. 150

136. Schlier, H., article κεφαλ?, ανακεφαλαι?ομαι, TDNT 3:681-682.

137. Cf. Cazelles, H., Instaurare Omnia in Christo (Eph 1 :10). Biblica 40(1959) p. 342, who says that instaurare and restaurare have the same meaning. In commenting on Romans, Ambrosiaster uses impleri.

138. Cerfaux, Christ, op. cit., though the French version, p. 319, has recapitulation.

139. Derived from Irenaeus, Haer., V, 29, 2, and used by the following among others: Origen (In Mt., 19, 22), Robinson (cf. Stanley, Christ's Resurrection, op. cit., p. 219), Benoit (L' Horizon, art. cit., p. 354), Cerfaux, Christ, op. cit., French, p. 319), Dufort ( La R?apitualtion Paulinienne dans l'Ex?g?se des P?res. Sciences Ecclesiastiques 12, (1960)). Other translations used: summatim comprehendere (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Photius), summatim perficere (John Damascenus).

140. PG 62:16 In Ep. ad Eph. 1:4; cf. Dufort, art. cit., p. 33; PG 60:618f, In Ep. ad Rom. 23; cf. Dacquino, art. cit., p. 340, note 3.

141. Thus Schlier, art. cit., TDNT 3:682; Stanley, Christ's Resurrection, op. cit., p. 219; Dufort, art. cit., p. 23, note 11, however, exaggerates when he says: "... le radical de kephale n'a rien a voir avec kephalaion dans le grec classique. Aucun des texts cites jusqu'ici ne nous autorise a tenter meme un tel rapprochement". The two words are obviously derived from the same stem, even if classical Greek did not consciously take account of or exploit that fact.

142. Dufort, art. cit., p. 21.

143. Thus Abbott, Robinson, Lightfoot, cf. Trinidad, art. cit., p. 19.

144. Tertullian, Quintillian, von Soden, cf. Trinidad, loc. cit.

145. Cf. Benoit, L'Horizon, art. cit., p. 354; this is the iterative meaning of ανα-, cf. De la Potterie, I., Jesus et la Verit? d'apr?s Eph 4:21. Stud.Paul.Cong.Int.Cath., II, pp. 45-57.

146. Dufort, art. cit., especially pp. 21-24, 27, 36-37 for what follows.

147. Schlier, art. cit., TDNT 3: 682.

148. Schlier, H., art. cit., TDNT 3:674; Dacquino, art. cit., pp. 341-342, note 4.

149. Schlier, H. art. cit., TDNT 3:680.

150. For the translation of υπερ ?ντα in 1:22 as a fortiori, and of ητι? in 1:23 as for this, cf. Dacquino, art. cit., p. 342 and note 1 on the same page.