The Husband is the Head of the Wife

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Newman

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). .

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...

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

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.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

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...

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.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

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.

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.

[Praxeas]

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?

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

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.

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?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

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.

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:

[Newman]

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.



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.



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?)



... 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.



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.



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

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

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Rico

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

Uh.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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; [Bas a token of her immodesty and non-subjection to her husband[/B], 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:

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.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

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.

John did.