The Husband is the Head of the Wife

[Ron]

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!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

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.

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

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?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

"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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

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?

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.....

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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?

So if she has no husband, is she headless?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by crakjak

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.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.....

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.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

There is no possesive in the Greek that would signify that Pual was speaking of husbands and wives. The KJV only used husband and wives when certain possesive words were in the text. Versions that put husband and wife in the text are BOLDLY "interpreting" Scripture rather than translating it. (Although arguably all translation is dependent on interpretation to a limited degree).

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

Point noted. Let me consider this for awhile and compare usage to other places in Scripture. I will get back with you... (eventually).

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

Man was not created for the sabath, but the sabath for man.... This statement was not addressing individual men nor individual sabaths; but the overall general idea. Consequently, I don't find this to be a persuasive arguement.

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?

Same as above. Speaking generally about the sorry state of humanity if only one sex existed.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Newman

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.