kephale: head of the Roman army?

A commenter recently posted this comment,

If “kephale” is in fact used to refer to generals of armies, the Roman Emperor, and the leaders of tribes (which Sue confirmed for us), then is this even really remotely debatable anymore?

I confirmed that kephale was used as tribal leader, uniquely for Jephthah. This passage is so problematic that this use of kephale is sometimes not cited as proof that God is (supposedly) the authority over Christ, or the husband is (supposedly) an authority over the wife.

But what about the "general of the army. "

Here is a passage from Grudem's study and his rebuttal to Richard Cervin,

The next example Cervin rejects as ambiguous is:

(23) Plutarch, Pelopidas 2.1.3: In an army, The light-armed troops are like the hands, the cavalry like the feet, the line of men-at-arms itself like chest and breastplate, and the general is like the head.

Here Cervin says, Plutarch is using the human body as a simile for the army. This is obvious in context, which Grudem again fails to provide{20} . " . . Plutarch does not call the general the 'head of the army'; he is merely employing a simile. This example is ambiguous at best, and may thus be dispensed with" (p. 101).

In response, Cervin is correct to point out that this is not a metaphorical use of head in which the general is called the head of the army but is indeed a simile in which Plutarch says, The general is like the head. It is indeed a helpful distinction to point out these similes and put them in a separate category, for, while they may be helpful in clarifying the use of a related metaphor, they are not precisely parallel. (my emphasis)

But I would not agree that the example therefore may be dispensed with, as Cervin says, for it is of some value in understanding the metaphor, but precision of analysis would be better served by putting it in a distinct category. I appreciate Mr. Cervin's suggestion at this point.

Here is more of the context,

For if, as Iphicrates analyzed the matter, the light-armed troops are like the hands, the cavalry like the feet, the line of men-at‑arms itself like chest and breastplate, and the general like the head, then he, in taking undue risks and being over bold, would seem to neglect not himself, but all, inasmuch as their safety depends on him, and their destruction too.

First, it is significant that the text says, "as Iphicrates analyzed the matter" indicating that "head" was not the normal way to refer to the general. This is an image used uniquely in this one place. It has to be explained that the general was "like" the head.

Next, Plutarch was born between 45 and 50 AD. Here he is writing about the general of a Roman army. In Latin the word caput had a more extended range than kephale had in Greek.

In Greek, the word kephale had a technical use in military terms, the right-hand half of a phalanx in Arrian's Tactica 8.3, which is a late first/early 2nd century treatise on Roman military practice, in Aelianus' Taktike 7.3 written about the Greek army, and the word is used for a band of men in Job 1:17 LXX. If kephale has a technical military use as something else, it is not easily pressed into use for the "general."

Last, but not least, the general in an army is one person over many. There is no indication that this is useful in 1 Cor. 11 for either the trinity or for marriage. This metaphor is not particulary useful for wedding sermons either.

The purpose of this post is not a further exploration of this topic, but just an opportunity to make available some of what has ;aready been written on this topic.