The Husband is the Head of the Wife

[ILG]

Newman, may I ask what your point is in saying that 1 Cor 11. is not about headship? I'm sure you have explained this to others at some time, but I have not read it and am not seeing your point and I would like to understand your view. Thanks.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by ILG

Newman, may I ask what your point is in saying that 1 Cor 11. is not about headship? I'm sure you have explained this to others at some time, but I have not read it and am not seeing your point and I would like to understand your view. Thanks.

Last post and I am out of here for awhile... hopefully! I believe that although one may be able to make a case for headship from the Scripture; they will have to do it without the 1 Cor 11 passage.

I do not feel this is about headship because:

1. It is not listed in order of a hierchy.

2. Furthermore, to view it as a divine order one must seemingly recognize two entities; God and Christ; with Christ being in eternal subjection to God.

3. It wasn't translated as husband and wife because it doesn't have the normal grammar clues in it to suggest such. Which leaves us wondering how any man can be the head of any woman.

4. Such an interpretation would place a husband between God and his wife. I reject such a notion as idolatry.

[ILG]

1. It is not listed in order of a hierchy.

How so? What does it mean then that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God? If that is not a hierarchy of headship, then what is it?

2. Furthermore, to view it as a divine order one must seemingly recognize two entities; God and Christ; with Christ being in eternal subjection to God.

Why do you think this speaks of eternal subjection? What do you do with 1 Cor. 15:24-28? Verse 28 reads "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things unto him, that God may be all in all". Not getting into the topic of the son becoming subject at a later date vs today but the topic being that the son will be subject unto the father period. I see no problem with Christ being subject to God as Christ was both humanity and diety. I believe this is speaking of his human form. But your theology seems to want to not recognize such dual speaking as in 1 Cor 15:28.

3. It wasn't translated as husband and wife because it doesn't have the normal grammar clues in it to suggest such. Which leaves us wondering how any man can be the head of any woman.

Well I'm sure we agree that not all men are the head of all women. So the husband/wife scenario seems to be the only scenario that works in this context. And, if not, what are you suggesting?

4. Such an interpretation would place a husband between God and his wife. I reject such a notion as idolatry.

Then Christ between God and man would also be idolatry. Anyway, I don't see headship of the man as a form of idolatry. You have in times past agreed that the scriptures indicate in other verses that the husband is the head of the wife. So, why would you reject that in 1 Cor. 11 and call it idolatry here and not in other areas?

[Newman]

Originally Posted by ILG

How so? What does it mean then that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God? If that is not a hierarchy of headship, then what is it?



Why do you think this speaks of eternal subjection? What do you do with 1 Cor. 15:24-28? Verse 28 reads "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things unto him, that God may be all in all". Not getting into the topic of the son becoming subject at a later date vs today but the topic being that the son will be subject unto the father period. I see no problem with Christ being subject to God as Christ was both humanity and diety. I believe this is speaking of his human form. But your theology seems to want to not recognize such dual speaking as in 1 Cor 15:28.



Well I'm sure we agree that not all men are the head of all women. So the husband/wife scenario seems to be the only scenario that works in this context. And, if not, what are you suggesting?



Then Christ between God and man would also be idolatry. Anyway, I don't see headship of the man as a form of idolatry. You have in times past agreed that the scriptures indicate in other verses that the husband is the head of the wife. So, why would you reject that in 1 Cor. 11 and call it idolatry here and not in other areas?

ILG- I am going to have to get back with you in a couple weeks. My son is home from school and I am have a heavy court schedule for the next couple weeks. Then I am going out of town for a few days after the trial work is concluded.

The points you raise are not easily put on paper in the time frame I can work with.

However, the idolatry part is. Man can be the leader of the household without standing between God and his wife. Mary heard directly from heaven as did Deborah, Hannah, the mother of John the Baptist, Sarah, etc.

However, God is not the author of confusion and would not be telling the spouses different things. In fact, in many of the cases recorded in Scripture, God spoke to both the husband and wife.

Each spouse must have their own bonafide relationship with God. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link but a three fold chain is not easily broken.

[Steve Epley]

The order is simple:
God head of
Christ head of
Man head of
Woman head of NOTHING!

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Newman

ILG- I am going to have to get back with you in a couple weeks. My son is home from school and I am have a heavy court schedule for the next couple weeks. Then I am going out of town for a few days after the trial work is concluded.

The points you raise are not easily put on paper in the time frame I can work with.

However, the idolatry part is. Man can be the leader of the household without standing between God and his wife. Mary heard directly from heaven as did Deborah, Hannah, the mother of John the Baptist, Sarah, etc.

However, God is not the author of confusion and would not be telling the spouses different things. In fact, in many of the cases recorded in Scripture, God spoke to both the husband and wife.

Each spouse must have their own bonafide relationship with God. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link but a three fold chain is not easily broken.

Okay. When you answer, you might want to PM me to let me know of it in case I miss it.

However, I don't see what is called the heirarchy in 1 Cor. 11 as having anything to do with man standing *between* God and the woman. The scriptures don't say that. They say simply that the man is the head of the woman. It is saying that the woman should have a covering when she prays or prophesies BECAUSE the man is the head of the woman. So, she is praying directly to God and prophesying directly from God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

I am not ever going to make a doctrine out of something there is no witness to verify that we are interpretting correctly.

I have no problem whatsoever with Paul saying the woman has choice about her head. It is everybody else that wants to read into the Scripture what was never there but promolgated by the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries.

The OT foreshadowed the NT. NT teaching is directly or indirectly linked to the OT or foreshadowed by the OT. You can't fit the puzzle pieces together trying to work with the theory you have.

Again...WHY does it HAVE to be in the OT? If it was in the OT why would we need a NT? Can you answer that? It's also said the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed...you don't reveal what is openly obvious.

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.

It may have been a JEWISH ORDINANCE but it wasn't God's ordinance. AND in fact flies in the face of OT teaching. I am still waiting for you to find out why we know this is so.

You're missing the point. Paul changes waht the Jews were practicing...whether it was in the law or not. He changes it and the point actually was in your favor I thought, if you advocate women being allowed to teach or preach or even pastor. Maybe you should go back and review my point regarding why I say Paul is addressing Husbands and Wives in Timothy

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....

Clarke writes as a man influenced by the thinking of the Catholic Church, influenced by Aquinas of the middle ages who was heavily influenced by Aristotle who thought very much like Chan. (Clear?)

Ad Hominem..... It's irrelevant if it sounds like Chancellor of the RCC...if it's biblical you must acknowledge it no matter how much it clashes with your personal preference :-)

... 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.

Ahhh.... Here he is getting closer to the truth, although he over-generalizes about too many groups without noting there were likely exceptions based on locality, marital and economic status. He in fact notes what the historical significance of head coverings were at the time Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

I have yet to see any historical record that suggest the head covering issue was one of subjection before 1 Corinthians was interpretted that way. It hardly makes sense that Paul would talk about a new theological issue book- marked by verses that spoke of culture and custom.

In fact the covering was practically universal and not just a Corinthian issue....which refutes the notion that Paul only introduces it because of what was happening in Corinth..contrary to how the context starts off with Paul addressing headship.

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:

My point exactly. It seems in most cultures; head coverings went to issues of perceived morality. In some cultures cut hair represented servitude for women (temple prostitutes). However, the Jewish culture; cut hair could be a sign of mourning, healing of leprosy or having taken the Nazarite vow. In Corinth cut hair was associated with immorality.

In the OT, women who were snatched from their homes had opportunity to cut off all their own hair (a sign of mourning just as Job did) before their marriages. They likely wore head coverings over their bare heads.

But the evidence shows that this practice was almost universal and even Paul says "does not nature itself"...Paul starts off with the Headship issue. Even non-Ultra Con non-Pentecostal greek scholars like Daniel Wallace acknowledges that the woman is to have a sign on her head to a universal congregation. He just denies it is supposed to be uncut hair.

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

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

But THAT issue was exactly part of why I started this thread. You must not have gotten it....the very fact that Paul may be addressing Husbands and Wives could change the interpretation of what Paul said about women teaching and leaning in silence etc etc and being in authority....

This message is too short blah blah blah blah....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

Last post and I am out of here for awhile... hopefully! I believe that although one may be able to make a case for headship from the Scripture; they will have to do it without the 1 Cor 11 passage.

I do not feel this is about headship because:

1. It is not listed in order of a hierchy.

2. Furthermore, to view it as a divine order one must seemingly recognize two entities; God and Christ; with Christ being in eternal subjection to God.

3. It wasn't translated as husband and wife because it doesn't have the normal grammar clues in it to suggest such. Which leaves us wondering how any man can be the head of any woman.

4. Such an interpretation would place a husband between God and his wife. I reject such a notion as idolatry.

Regarding the bolded part....this "duality" is present throughout the NT....surely you recognize that. Jesus distinguished himself in an inferior manner to God and as well so did the Apostolic authors...it's probably due to the humanity of Christ

1Co 15:27 For, "He put all things in subjection under his feet." But when he says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him.
1Co 15:28 When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.

It has plenty of grammatical and contextual clues to translate it Husband and wife as illustrated earlier and Paul explicitly teaches headship at the outset of the subject

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Now can you say 1Cor 11 is NOT about headship? You have to recognize at least verse 3 is

As for your last unsubstantiated assertion that it would place a husband between God and the wife....well like I said, it's unsubstantiated. Headship, order of creation and or even the issue of submission is not about the husband being between God and the woman like a little god (your quip about idolatry?)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Headship, order of creation and or even the issue of submission is not about the husband being between God and the woman.

This is how I see it, Prax.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by ILG

Well I'm sure we agree that not all men are the head of all women. So the husband/wife scenario seems to be the only scenario that works in this context. And, if not, what are you suggesting?

Praxeas and ILG-

I can't stand leaving unfinished items on the board; so let me put something back in your court...

If this verse is about husbands and wives as you have suggested; then how does it work and what does it say if we use husband and wife through out the passage?

Only husbands need to cut their hair? Only wives are required to have long hair and/or be covered?

Does husband and wife work in the context of verses 11 and 12?

The Life Application Bible says this of verse 3; "In the phrase 'the head of the woman is the man,' head is not used to indicate control or supremacy, rather 'the source of.'

Because man was created first, the woman derives her existence from man, as man does Christ, and Christ from God."

Of course just because they say so; doesn't make it so. Just wanted to show that some mainstream current scholars veiw the issue similar to me.