The Husband is the Head of the Wife
 

I just realized why the opposition to the truth that the topic of 1Cor 11 is headship. If Paul is discussing headship then Paul is tying in hair and coverings with headship....the problem? This throws a monkey wrench into the notion that Paul is addressing the topic of hair and coverings due to local customs only. It implies that the woman is to have a sign on her head that is due to HER headship...being her husband.

The ironic thing about this is I was thinking it might throw a monkey wrench into the idea of those that disagree with women preachers or teachers or other types of leadership positions. Why?

The NET bible commentary points out

2 tn Or "the husband is the head of his wife." The same Greek words translated "man" and "woman" can mean, as determined by context, "husband" and "wife" respectively. Such an approach is followed by NAB, TEV, NRSV, and NLT (with some variations).

The greek word for man is
A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male): - fellow, husband, man, sir.

The greek word for woman is
Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: - wife, woman.

If that is true then consider again what Paul says here
1Ti 2:9 Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing,
1Ti 2:10 but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God.
1Ti 2:11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness.
1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.
1Ti 2:15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.

Note the last part seems to have men and women here tied more directly to marriage whereas in the first part it is more general. Adam and Eve were husband and wife. Woman bear children. Note also the same theme from 1Cor of Adam being created first and then Eve

1Ti 2:11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness.
1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.
1Ti 2:15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.

Before the NT church only men could learn. Paul is now introducing something radical...that women may learn too. If this is about husbands and wifes could it be that what Paul has in mind is that the woman who learns along with her husband is not to be spiritually superior to her husband by way of being his teacher too? And not necessarily against her teaching or speaking publically, since we know there were female prophetesses.

Also the word authority here means she is not to lord it over him or have dominion over him.

VWS The verb means to do a thing one's self; hence, to exercise authority. The A.V. usurp authority is a mistake. Rend. to have or exercise dominion over.


RWP It comes from auṫhentes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive authentēs, master, verb authenteō, to domineer, adjective authentikos, authoritative, “authentic”). Modern Greek has aphentes = Effendi = “Mark.”

NET 20 tn According to BDAG 150 s.αὐθεντέω this Greek verb means "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to" (cf. JB "tell a man what to do").

Now, of course if one believes a leader is someone that can give orders to or dictate too, you might have a problem here. I don't believe that a Pastor or leader or teacher is a dictator in the kingdom of God and if that is true then Paul is not forbidding a woman to lead in some capacity here as long as she realizes Adam came first, not woman.

I know the libs and the cons are gonna hate me for that, but alas such is the life of the persecuted mod

This coming from an unmarried!:D

As one wise man said, "Since the husband is the wife's head, it stands to reason that she can therefore put any hat on it she desires." :)

Of course....I reject the absurd notion that I need a wife with uncut hair to have protection lol...I need a wife for OTHER reasons actually :happydance

They are?:D

But still....why can't a wife teach her husband anything? just the act of getting married or being born male doesn't make you inherently smarter...

:kiss :happydance

It's talking about being HIS teacher in spiritual things. Men previously were supposed to learn in silence and the woman did not learn at all. The only way she learned was after her husband taught her at home. Now they were BOTH allowed to learn in silence...no role reversal here

That is only a part.
It is my observation that most people (men especially) don't find out how selfish they are until they get married.

Marriage and family calls for a lot of sel sacrifice.

But it is stil good!:happydance

Oh, Ok. I thought you were saying, that women were allowed to learn, as long as they didn't try to teach their husbands anything.

Like women can teach their husbands anything anyway....in 10 years, mine still hasn't learned what the hamper is for :D

I appreciate you putting this together, I have always believed (and taught by the good Dr. Segraves) that these passages forbidding women speaking in church and the hair issue are all in context dealing with the relationship between husband and wive.

Yes it does. What do you know? Yer just a girl! :happydance Hehehehe.






















Ya know I'm just messin with ya!

Sister, if you made a basketball game out of him putting his clothes in the hamper then maybe he'd get the hint. :tiphat He shoots and scores!!!!

Well, I am not going to dig out all my resources but my understanding is that the reason husband and wife wasn't used in 1 Corinthians 11, was because there is no possesive language that NORMALLY shows up when a husband or wife is meant instead of just man or woman. This was why and how the KJV chose between man, woman, husband and wife for all passages where it was a possibility. This is my understanding so far. ;)

considering that Prax's study is very good, I hate to try to make a funny....but

while I agree that the husband is the head of the wife, the wife is the neck of the head....

I am pretty sure the trinitarians left that out of the interpretation.... cuz surely Paul would have included that.

What are they for anyway?:D

Why now in the NT? Why were there 613 Mosiac laws and not one of them required a symbol of "headship"? And why no other witness as to this symbolism? :cool:

Good post! :tiphat

You're the man, RonB!!!!!!

:happydance :happydance

Hopefully he's learned what the toilet seat is for :toofunny

Is the Man the "Head of the Wife?"

As one fellow said, "only if he is walking first will he be ahead!"
"De men in de front and de women in de back!"

Oh I made a funny one!:D

Ah...like a skilled fisherMAN, I knew I could hook ya....let's see how long it takes to reel you in :toofunny

Well let's look at this verse in english
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Notice "the head of EVERY man" and not merely "the head of the man"

Note also THE man was not created for the woman but THE woman was made for THE man....if this is not specific but general that would mean ALL women were created for any and all individual males as opposed to one married male and female

Notice also here "in the Lord"
1Co 11:11 But neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

How do we apply that to all women to all and any men, not just her husband?

"He that finds a wife, has found a good thing." Amen! Well, I found her 37 years ago and she is still fine!!! I delight in the wife of my youth, cut hair enhances her appeal! For one thing she doesn't have to spend hours trying to do something with it.:toofunny

We aren't under the law Newman...why do I need to look into the law for something? Neither was there a requirement to pray or prophesy covered.

In fact under the law only the males presented themselves and were instructed. If Paul is only raising a cultural issue that has no relevance on church today, then all women are required NOT to learn in silence at all and NOT to present themselves before the Lord.....

So if she has no husband, is she headless?

Good question. As far as spiritual authority goes in a marriage, yes she is headless. She is not married, she has no husband.

However she is still to be covered since Paul said

1Co 11:5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head.

:ignore

1. You miss my point. Why would these kind of requirements come into the NT when it wasn't in the OT? Why the need for a symbols at this point of time?

2. Wrong. Try again. Before the Jews were hellenized God told them that the women were to be instructed too. I willl let you figure out how we know this is so. ;)

Why bother with baptism then?

Baptism is a symbol of what happenes spiritually. They didn't have to do that in the OT under the Law.

God is God. He can require whatever He chooses.

Newman, I know it is difficult to respond to 15 people on one topic, however it looks like you are essentially saying the bible doesn't say what it says. You made mention of interpretation instead of translating and therefore you could pretty much vaporize any passage that doesn't fit your philosophy, it plainly says HUSBAND and WIFE and is not a bold interpretation just because you say it is. Maybe I am not understanding here...

Ruh-roh, Raggy.

Carpenter- The KJV of 1 Corinthians 11 PLAINLY says man and woman, not husband or wife.

There are 221 times the transliterated word gune is used in the NT KJV. The KJV scholars attempted to translate the Greek text for what it actually said without bringing their own ideas into it.

The KJV scholars translated gune as woman or wife dependent on the usage they believe the writer intended based on the the rules of grammar for the language as they understood them. The use of possesive words next to man or woman modify how it was translated.

In other words, words such as "own/idios" and "his;her/auto" next to man or woman indicate that the writer is speaking of husband or wife and verses within the same passage follow suit.

These kinds of words are found in the context of Ephesians 5, 1 Cor 7, and 1 Cor 14:35 but ABSENT from 1 Corinthians 11. :cool:

Let me clarify. Why would symbols about husbands and wives come into the NT now; as opposed to when the husband and wife were first introduced to each other in the garden of Eden or when God gave Moses the laws for for the Children of Israel to live by?

Indeed baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial and ressurection (Romans 6:3-4). But one wouldn't expect to find such a commandment in the OT before Christ was come.

Baptism was modeled by Jesus, taught in the Gospels and the Epistles. We have a historicial record of it happening in Acts. In other words, lots of witnesses for our belief that baptism was something uniquely ordained for the NT church. :cool:

That's not a point. That's a question that you are using your own conclusion of as evidence...So what if it was not in the OT???? Why does it have to be in the OT? Why do we need to know why? Paul said "she shall have power on her head because of...." you can't just magically wipe out everything Paul said because you can't find it in the OLD testament...there is a reason why it is the OLD testament...and why we use now the NEW Testament

That's again just an assertion.

Clarke
1Co 14:34 -
Let your women keep silence in the churches - This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1Co_11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.

An interesting Note on 1cor and hair by Clarke
The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil.

This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonor her head - her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.

Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; “having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors.” And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Num_5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off:

BTW are you arguing that women are NOT allowed to teach?

Newman, you know that women in the OT wore veils and if she committed adultery her veil was removed as part of a ritual to clear her of guilt?

Num 5:18 Then the priest will have the woman stand before the Lord, uncover the woman's head, and put the grain offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of suspicion. And in the hand of the priest will be the bitter water that brings a curse.

Gill adds
and uncover the woman's head; as a token of her immodesty and non-subjection to her husband, and that she might be seen by all, to cause shame in her: according to the Misnah (u), the priest took off her clothes, and loosed her hair--if she was clothed with white garments, he clothed her with black; if she had on her ornaments of gold, chains, earrings, or rings, he took them away from her, that she might be unseemly, and whoever would might come and look at her:

Absolutly not. Please don't even try to drag me into another discussion! :igotit

Uh. :D

And what is your point? Removal of head covering as token of subjection was pure speculation on Gill's part; as he looked through the Catholic lens of Aquinas/Aristotle.

I would be very interested in writing from pre-Paul that speaks of a head covering for women being a sign of subjection as opposed to morality and modesty. ;)

John did.