View Full Version : 1 Corinthians 11:10
Digging4Truth
03-08-2007, 08:44 AM
I find this verse to be interesting when I look a little deeper.
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
Let's look at the word that is translated as power...
Power - Greek for 1849
Pronunciation Guide
exousia {ex-oo-see'-ah}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 2:562,238 from 1832 (in the sense of ability)
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
a) leave or permission
2) physical and mental power
a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
a) universally
1) authority over mankind
b) specifically
1) the power of judicial decisions
2) of authority to manage domestic affairs
c) metonymically
1) a thing subject to authority or rule
a) jurisdiction
2) one who possesses authority
a) a ruler, a human magistrate
b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
e) the sign of regal authority, a crown
I originally copy/pasted this in for the references to right, privilige, power of choice etc but then noticed this reference at the bottom. This word can actually mean veil.
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have a veil on [her] head because of the angels....
It is interesting to see how much sense that makes in the context of the conversation.
Interesting...
MrsMcD
03-08-2007, 08:49 AM
Are you still digging for the truth? :praying
Garfield
03-08-2007, 09:05 AM
:beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse
Digging4Truth
03-08-2007, 09:06 AM
Are you still digging for the truth? :praying
(inhales to verify)
Yep... still breathing... still digging for truth. :)
I'm not making a statement... I just found it interesting and would like to offer it for discussion among those who would care to do so.
I lived several decades of my christian life under the delusion that, although I was sure there was some little tidbit out there that I wasn't privy to, I basically had all the truth anyone would need.
But I'm feeling much better now. :)
Digging is good for the soul. :)
Digging4Truth
03-08-2007, 09:07 AM
:beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse
I have never heard this possible translation discussed EVER.
Eliseus
03-08-2007, 01:35 PM
Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.
However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.
tbpew
03-08-2007, 01:58 PM
Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.
However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.
Like a crown?
Felicity
03-08-2007, 02:12 PM
Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.
However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.
Like a crown?I'm not getting this. :confused:
Eliseus
03-09-2007, 05:46 AM
Paul said the woman ought to have authority on her head.
He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of her husband's authority.
He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of being under authority.
He DID say she ought to have authority on her head.
What a lot of people do not realise is that Paul's teaching when put into practice serves as an incredible object lesson.
I will try to go through this step by step later today.
But Paul's actual words are "ought to have authority on her head"...
Digging4Truth
03-09-2007, 06:14 AM
Paul said the woman ought to have authority on her head.
He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of her husband's authority.
He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of being under authority.
He DID say she ought to have authority on her head.
What a lot of people do not realise is that Paul's teaching when put into practice serves as an incredible object lesson.
I will try to go through this step by step later today.
But Paul's actual words are "ought to have authority on her head"...
Well brother.... in the closest english representation of the greek writings of his words...Paul's actual words were....
opheilo gune echo exousia epi kephale
The word translated power in that verse is exousia.
Exousia can mean the following things...
Power - Greek for 1849
Pronunciation Guide
exousia {ex-oo-see'-ah}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 2:562,238 from 1832 (in the sense of ability)
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
a) leave or permission
2) physical and mental power
a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
a) universally
1) authority over mankind
b) specifically
1) the power of judicial decisions
2) of authority to manage domestic affairs
c) metonymically
1) a thing subject to authority or rule
a) jurisdiction
2) one who possesses authority
a) a ruler, a human magistrate
b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
e) the sign of regal authority, a crown
Among the things this word can mean... it CAN mean... a sign of authority (such as a crown) and it can mean a sign of a husbands authority over his wife (such as a veil)
With these being possible definitions of the term I don't understand how you can say with such absolute resolve that Paul did NOT say that she ought to have a symbol on her head and Paul DID say she ought to have authority on her head.
Now... you can make the statement... with all of the authority you can muster... that the King James translaters DID and/or DID NOT say these things. If you stance is that the King James translators are absolutely and completely inerrant in their translation of the word of God then you could make such a statement on that premise.
But with a "sign of authority" or a "sign of a husbands authority" over her being the possible definitions available I cannot see how you are saying this so authoritatively.
It could even be that in the syntax that it could not mean this or that... I don't know... but you didn't mention anything like that... you have just said... with complete authority... that Paul did not say that.... and it would seem that this would at least be a possibility.
Rhoni
03-09-2007, 06:20 AM
Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.
However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.
Isn't "Exousia" the highest form of praise/honor and respect a person can give to God? Would it be that a woman's adornment of uncut hair is a highest form of praise to her authority/husband, and ulitmately God? Just curious as to what you think about this.
Blessings, Rhoni
COOPER
03-09-2007, 06:27 AM
Isn't "Exousia" the highest form of praise/honor and respect a person can give to God? Would it be that a woman's adornment of uncut hair is a highest form of praise to her authority/husband, and ulitmately God? Just curious as to what you think about this.
Blessings, Rhoni
:vomit
Digging4Truth
03-09-2007, 06:44 AM
Isn't "Exousia" the highest form of praise/honor and respect a person can give to God? Would it be that a woman's adornment of uncut hair is a highest form of praise to her authority/husband, and ulitmately God? Just curious as to what you think about this.
Blessings, Rhoni
No ma'am... Exousia means the list of things that has been copy/pasted several times in this thread. The definitions listed is the extent of it's possible meanings.
I cannot remember off hand the word you are thinking of... but I have heard of it before.
Eliseus
03-09-2007, 07:12 AM
Well brother.... in the closest english representation of the greek writings of his words...Paul's actual words were....
opheilo gune echo exousia epi kephale
The word translated power in that verse is exousia.
Exousia can mean the following things...
Among the things this word can mean... it CAN mean... a sign of authority (such as a crown) and it can mean a sign of a husbands authority over his wife (such as a veil)
With these being possible definitions of the term I don't understand how you can say with such absolute resolve that Paul did NOT say that she ought to have a symbol on her head and Paul DID say she ought to have authority on her head.
Now... you can make the statement... with all of the authority you can muster... that the King James translaters DID and/or DID NOT say these things. If you stance is that the King James translators are absolutely and completely inerrant in their translation of the word of God then you could make such a statement on that premise.
But with a "sign of authority" or a "sign of a husbands authority" over her being the possible definitions available I cannot see how you are saying this so authoritatively.
It could even be that in the syntax that it could not mean this or that... I don't know... but you didn't mention anything like that... you have just said... with complete authority... that Paul did not say that.... and it would seem that this would at least be a possibility.
The problem is "a sign of a husband's authority" is NOT a DEFINITION of exousia. I suspect that if you were to trace back where this supposed "usage" is to be found in Scripture, you would wind up right here in 1 Cor 11... :)
Meaning that for anyone to claim "exousia means a sign of a husband's authority", they would be begging the question.
The word properly means "authority". And Paul most definitely said "a woman ought to have authority on her head".
Please notice the construction - the woman ought to HAVE AUTHORITY. "On her head" is a prepositional phrase modifiying HAVE, not "authority". It serves an an adverbial element, not an adjectival element. (I you say "I ought to have a cow in the barn" the phrase "in the barn" modifies "have" not "cow"... it tells WHERE the "having" is to take place, not what kind of cow you ought to have. So too here, "on her head" simply tells WHERE the authority ought to be, not WHAT KIND of authority the woman is to have, but WHERE she is to have it.)
So then, authority is what she is to have. On her head is where she is to have it. Because of the angels is why she is to have it, on her head.
Which tells us the woman is to have authority. Not "be under authority" so much as to have authority - on her head.
I will return to this later, around noon or so. I will (hopefully) show how this all ties together into a beautiful truth that so many may have missed.
Eliseus
03-09-2007, 07:14 AM
Isn't "Exousia" the highest form of praise/honor and respect a person can give to God? Would it be that a woman's adornment of uncut hair is a highest form of praise to her authority/husband, and ulitmately God? Just curious as to what you think about this.
Blessings, Rhoni
As D4T noted, exousia does not mean praise or honour. That would probably be doxa.
On a side note, Paul isn't talking about a woman's "uncut hair". :)
Rhoni
03-09-2007, 07:15 AM
No ma'am... Exousia means the list of things that has been copy/pasted several times in this thread. The definitions listed is the extent of it's possible meanings.
I cannot remember off hand the word you are thinking of... but I have heard of it before.
I thought that was the word our Pastor taught about Wednesday night...that is how he pronounced it...I have not studied the greek and hebrew...
Rhoni
03-09-2007, 07:16 AM
As D4T noted, exousia does not mean praise or honour. That would probably be doxa.
On a side note, Paul isn't talking about a woman's "uncut hair". :)
So, I'm confused....what's new?:heeheehee
Newman
03-09-2007, 07:21 AM
Well brother.... in the closest english representation of the greek writings of his words...Paul's actual words were....
opheilo gune echo exousia epi kephale
The word translated power in that verse is exousia.
Exousia can mean the following things...
Among the things this word can mean... it CAN mean... a sign of authority (such as a crown) and it can mean a sign of a husbands authority over his wife (such as a veil)
With these being possible definitions of the term I don't understand how you can say with such absolute resolve that Paul did NOT say that she ought to have a symbol on her head and Paul DID say she ought to have authority on her head.
Now... you can make the statement... with all of the authority you can muster... that the King James translaters DID and/or DID NOT say these things. If you stance is that the King James translators are absolutely and completely inerrant in their translation of the word of God then you could make such a statement on that premise.
But with a "sign of authority" or a "sign of a husbands authority" over her being the possible definitions available I cannot see how you are saying this so authoritatively.
It could even be that in the syntax that it could not mean this or that... I don't know... but you didn't mention anything like that... you have just said... with complete authority... that Paul did not say that.... and it would seem that this would at least be a possibility.
My understanding of this translation is that it was a man made spin on a passge that did not fit what they thought it meant if it was to be understood that Paul was now saying that women had authority over their own heads.
So they decided that Paul must have used this word to stand for "sign of authority." Greek scholars scratch their heads and think that only Biblical scholars could engage in such mental gymnastics to come up with such a translation.
For the record, my take on this verse is that the idea Paul is expressing is similar to two chapters earlier in which Paul said that he had a right (Exousia) to take offerings from the Corinth but did not for the sake of those that would be offended. Likewise, he tells the Corinthian church in this passage that they have the right to not wear head coverings (because head coverings have nothing whatsoever to do with praying or prophesying or equal footing in front of the cross) but should do so out of respect for their husbands who would appear as if they were being dishonored in that culture. :cool:
Newman
03-09-2007, 07:24 AM
The problem is "a sign of a husband's authority" is NOT a DEFINITION of exousia. I suspect that if you were to trace back where this supposed "usage" is to be found in Scripture, you would wind up right here in 1 Cor 11... :)
Meaning that for anyone to claim "exousia means a sign of a husband's authority", they would be begging the question.
EXACTLY! :cool:
Digging4Truth
03-09-2007, 07:27 AM
I thought that was the word our Pastor taught about Wednesday night...that is how he pronounced it...I have not studied the greek and hebrew...
Ask him what it was and we will take a look at it.
This particular word is in Greek.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.