The Husband is the Head of the Wife

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

For the record:
I wear the pants in my family!

My wife may pick them out, buy them, and tell me which ones to wear....but I wear them..........

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

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?

This sort of reminds me of the fallacious argument over if her hair is her covering how is she supposed to remove it when not praying or prophesying...see actually Paul does not say she has to remove her covering. He was only pointing out how wrong it is for her to prophesy or pray without one.

Let's look at the grammar again of the first verse in question
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Notice that Christ is the head of EVERY man...not "Christ is the head of THE man"....Using a definite article might imply a certain amount of uniqueness. Christ is not the head of husbands only, but is head of EVERY man. But then Paul adds a definite article in the remainder of the context..THE man is the head of a woman. It's talking about a specific man in that instance...as opposed to the indefinite. The converse view, which you are espousing perhaps unwittingly, makes me your head...it would make every male your head.

Again Christ is THE head of every man. THE man IS THE head of a woman and God is the head of Christ....even if you disagree with the word man refering to a husband in that relation to the woman you still have a verse that explicitly teaches headship.

Notice here again how Paul uses the articles
1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

Are you my glory? Notice the play between the definite and indefinite articles? Is EVERY woman the glory of EVERY man or is this speaking of THE woman and THE man...obviously. The definite articles here are important Newman

Notice what Paul says here
1Co 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head.

Not "The man", but ANY man.

Also the sole reason for a woman having long hair is NOT simply in relation to her husband. This goes back to the "she can't take off her veil if it's her hair" fallacy...

Long hair is a glory given to all women
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If she cuts her covering off or if you will, does not wear a veil she disgraces her head when praying or prophesying

The notion that she does not need to have long hair UNTIL she gets married might sound like a good argument to NOT remain a virgin UNTIL she gets married....in other words not save it for marriage. If her long hair is a symbol of submission to a husband by cutting it she shows symbolically her lack of submission perhaps to any possibly suiters :-)

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.'

Ok...or ORDER OF CREATION. The point isn't that she needs to be submissive...the point is what is the context saying. Newman...Paul is tying in the subject of hair and coverings with headship...even if it only means order of creation or source of the point is still headship and this throws a monkey wrench into the notion that Paul was ONLY addressing a cultural issue and not a universal one. It's an absolute universal truth that God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man and the man is the head of a woman.

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

Well that sounds Trinitarian....no, it sounds Arian...God created Christ and Christ created man and then woman from the man?

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).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ForeverBlessed

I am woman and I agree with you.

With me, it took studying Eph chapter 5 to really understand.

God's ways are not our ways.. society might have changed... but he never does.

still don't believe the hair has to be "uncut" though.

Awww...you disappointed me. I was expecting you to say "I am woman, hear me roar"

Paul forbad women from teaching the CHURCH. The elder women were to teach the younger women things necessary to being a good Christian wife and mother, but women were NOT authorised to teach DOCTRINE to the church.

That women prophesied in no way requires that women be TEACHERS of the CHURCH.

Paul taught headship, and headcovering which demonstrates that headship and which operates (in the case of the woman) as AUTHORITY TO SPEAK either TO or FOR God (in prophesying or praying).

(But it should be noted that Paul's PRIMARY concern in 1 Cor 11a is PRAYING, not prophesying, for he asks rhetorically "Is it comely that a woman should pray uncovered?")

Also, the woman in 1 Cor 11a who prays or prophesies need not pray or prophesy TO or IN the CHURCH GATHERING ITSELF.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This sort of reminds me of the fallacious argument over if her hair is her covering how is she supposed to remove it when not praying or prophesying...see actually Paul does not say she has to remove her covering. He was only pointing out how wrong it is for her to prophesy or pray without one.

Let's look at the grammar again of the first verse in question
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Notice that Christ is the head of EVERY man...not "Christ is the head of THE man"....Using a definite article might imply a certain amount of uniqueness. Christ is not the head of husbands only, but is head of EVERY man. But then Paul adds a definite article in the remainder of the context..THE man is the head of a woman. It's talking about a specific man in that instance...as opposed to the indefinite. The converse view, which you are espousing perhaps unwittingly, makes me your head...it would make every male your head.

Again Christ is THE head of every man. THE man IS THE head of a woman and God is the head of Christ....even if you disagree with the word man refering to a husband in that relation to the woman you still have a verse that explicitly teaches headship.

Notice here again how Paul uses the articles
1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

Are you my glory? Notice the play between the definite and indefinite articles? Is EVERY woman the glory of EVERY man or is this speaking of THE woman and THE man...obviously. The definite articles here are important Newman

Notice what Paul says here
1Co 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head.

Not "The man", but ANY man.

Also the sole reason for a woman having long hair is NOT simply in relation to her husband. This goes back to the "she can't take off her veil if it's her hair" fallacy...

Long hair is a glory given to all women
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If she cuts her covering off or if you will, does not wear a veil she disgraces her head when praying or prophesying

The notion that she does not need to have long hair UNTIL she gets married might sound like a good argument to NOT remain a virgin UNTIL she gets married....in other words not save it for marriage. If her long hair is a symbol of submission to a husband by cutting it she shows symbolically her lack of submission perhaps to any possibly suiters :-)



Ok...or ORDER OF CREATION. The point isn't that she needs to be submissive...the point is what is the context saying. Newman...Paul is tying in the subject of hair and coverings with headship...even if it only means order of creation or source of the point is still headship and this throws a monkey wrench into the notion that Paul was ONLY addressing a cultural issue and not a universal one. It's an absolute universal truth that God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man and the man is the head of a woman.


Well that sounds Trinitarian....no, it sounds Arian...God created Christ and Christ created man and then woman from the man?

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).

This whole post is excellent, Prax. Lots of things to consider. You broke it down in an excellent way for agreement or rebuttal. lol

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This sort of reminds me of the fallacious argument over if her hair is her covering how is she supposed to remove it when not praying or prophesying...see actually Paul does not say she has to remove her covering. He was only pointing out how wrong it is for her to prophesy or pray without one.

Let's look at the grammar again of the first verse in question
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Notice that Christ is the head of EVERY man...not "Christ is the head of THE man"....Using a definite article might imply a certain amount of uniqueness. Christ is not the head of husbands only, but is head of EVERY man. But then Paul adds a definite article in the remainder of the context..THE man is the head of a woman. It's talking about a specific man in that instance...as opposed to the indefinite. The converse view, which you are espousing perhaps unwittingly, makes me your head...it would make every male your head.

Again Christ is THE head of every man. THE man IS THE head of a woman and God is the head of Christ....even if you disagree with the word man refering to a husband in that relation to the woman you still have a verse that explicitly teaches headship.

Notice here again how Paul uses the articles
1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

Are you my glory? Notice the play between the definite and indefinite articles? Is EVERY woman the glory of EVERY man or is this speaking of THE woman and THE man...obviously. The definite articles here are important Newman

Notice what Paul says here
1Co 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head.

Not "The man", but ANY man.

Also the sole reason for a woman having long hair is NOT simply in relation to her husband. This goes back to the "she can't take off her veil if it's her hair" fallacy...

Long hair is a glory given to all women
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If she cuts her covering off or if you will, does not wear a veil she disgraces her head when praying or prophesying

The notion that she does not need to have long hair UNTIL she gets married might sound like a good argument to NOT remain a virgin UNTIL she gets married....in other words not save it for marriage. If her long hair is a symbol of submission to a husband by cutting it she shows symbolically her lack of submission perhaps to any possibly suiters :-)



Ok...or ORDER OF CREATION. The point isn't that she needs to be submissive...the point is what is the context saying. Newman...Paul is tying in the subject of hair and coverings with headship...even if it only means order of creation or source of the point is still headship and this throws a monkey wrench into the notion that Paul was ONLY addressing a cultural issue and not a universal one. It's an absolute universal truth that God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man and the man is the head of a woman.


Well that sounds Trinitarian....no, it sounds Arian...God created Christ and Christ created man and then woman from the man?

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).

Prax,My KJV don't say and the man is the head of a woman, and neither does the Greek.Here is KJV AND GREEK.

1 Cor11:3 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

1 Corinthians 11:3 qelw <2309> (5719) de <1161> {BUT I WISH} umaV <5209> {YOU} eidenai <1492> (5760) {TO KNOW,} oti <3754> {THAT} pantoV <3956> {OF EVERY} androV <435> {MAN} h <3588> {THE} kefalh <2776> {HEAD} o <3588> {THE} cristoV <5547> {CHRIST} estin <2076> (5748) {IS,} kefalh <2776> de <1161> {BUT HEAD} gunaikoV <1135> {OF [THE] WOMEN [IS]} o <3588> {THE} anhr <435> {MAN,} kefalh <2776> de <1161> {AND HEAD} cristou <5547> o <3588> {OF CHRIST,} qeoV <2316> {GOD.

Also if the covering here is talking about the hair this statement woun't make any sence because she would not be able to cut her hair because she would all ready have cut it.Not covered would mean the same as to cut and shorn means to cut,so this statement would make no sence.

1 Cor,11:6: For if the woman be not covered(cut her hair), let her also be shorn(cut her hair): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Submission is NOT an ugly word.
Saints are to submit themselves to God. James 4:7
Saints are to submit to each other. Eph. 5:21
Saints are to submit ot civil authorities. 1Pet. 2:13
Saints are to submit to those have the rule of them spiritually. Heb. 13:7,17
Wives are to submit to their own husbands. Eph.5:22
If women are equal in authority then:
Then Christ is NOT the Head of the church BECAUSE the church is subject to Christ as a wife is subject to her husband. Eph.5:23-24
Paul was incorrect in saying it was FIT unto the Lord for wives to submit to their husbands. Col. 3:18
Then evidently the word of God is NOT blaspmemed as Paul declared when women are not obedient to their husbands. Titus 2:5
The example given of godly women in the OT by Peter 1Pet. 3:1-7 is incorrect and thus culture again trumps Biblical precedent.
The FACT is:
God in the curse commanded women that "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE." Gen. 3:16
If this curse has been lifted then do you ladies:
have sorrow in conception and does sorrow accompany child birth???????
If NOT then the man is ruler over women in 2007.
Culture has NOT eliminated the curse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now this question how could I be the ruler in my own house and my wife must Biblically submit to me THEN go to church and me submit to someone else's wife??????????????????????????????????????????

Again no takers?????????????????????????

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Awww...you disappointed me. I was expecting you to say "I am woman, hear me roar"

Ahem! That would be my line

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Awww...you disappointed me. I was expecting you to say "I am woman, hear me roar"

well, I can agree as well as roar.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Joelel

[B]Prax,My KJV don't say and the man is the head of a woman, and neither does the Greek.Here is KJV AND GREEK.

1 Cor11:3 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

You are right that is does not say, "a", but it does seem to imply it. Logically every man couldn't be over every women in a personal way, but could do so in a spiritual way - as in a pastor. The whole scripture isn't even saying that she has no spiritual use of her own anyway.