The Husband is the Head of the Wife

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

In order to understand properly the meaning of "head" as used by the Apostle Paul, it is helpful to determine its meaning within the language spoken by Paul. The authors of such works as A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry G. Liddell and Roberts Scott (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1968), or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 10 volumes) have thoroughly investigated biblical and contemporary extra-biblical writings and reported that the word 'kephale' [head] was used in secular and religious Greek contemporary to Paul with the meaning of source, origin, sustainer, and not of ruler....

It was much later that the word kephale began to be used as 'authority' under the pressure of Latin usage, as evidenced in the writings of some post apostolic church fathers.

Taken from "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Bilezikian (1985) page 278

Newman....can you show me where I said "ruler"? I did say order of creation did I not?

Anyways, continuing that subject
Thayers says
Thayer Definition:
1) the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2) metaphorically anything supreme, chief, prominent
2a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
2b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
2c) of things: the corner stone

Now, before you poopoo that, let's also look at Zodhaites lexicon

(II) Metaphorically of persons, i.e., the head, chief, one to whom others are subordinate, e.g., the husband in relation to his wife (1Co_11:3; Eph_5:23) insofar as they are one body (Mat_19:6; Mar_10:8), and one body can have only one head to direct it; of Christ in relation to His Church which is His body, and its members are His members (cf. 1Co_12:27; Eph_1:22; Eph_4:15; Eph_5:23; Col_1:18; Col_2:10, Col_2:19); of God in relation to Christ (1Co_11:3). In Col_2:10 & Eph_1:22, God the Father is designated as the head of Christ. Generally, of a leader or ruler (Sept.: Jdg_11:11).

Now...I don't have Liddel and Scott here, but I am wondering...were you only looking up the general definition? Is that a dictionary or a lexicon? Lexicographers show how a word has meaning depending on the context and grammar and not merely the definition

Let's also look at how else this word is used
1Pe 2:7 Therefore to you who believe is the honor. But to those who are disobedient, He is the Stone which the builders rejected; this One came to be the Head of the corner,

Col 2:10 And you are complete in Him, who is the Head of all principality and power,

Col 1:18 And He is the Head of the body, the church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that He may be pre-eminent in all things.

Eph 1:22 And He has put all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church,

Gotta run

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Newman

So although women could bring shame to men, the converse was not true. Women were not disgraced by men since they had no real power to control them. When a man messed up, nobody (in that era) blamed it on the women in his household. After all, the man was considered the master of his universe. Thus men’s actions were a reflection upon God; while women’s actions brought the most immediate attention to their husbands, fathers and/or brothers.

Newman,
I think in "any era" men generally are not blamed as much as the woman. My daughter would complain because I seemed to give our son a bit more liberty then she was afforded. I told her, "That's because you are a girl!" lol!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Newman

In order to understand properly the meaning of "head" as used by the Apostle Paul, it is helpful to determine its meaning within the language spoken by Paul. The authors of such works as A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry G. Liddell and Roberts Scott (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1968), or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 10 volumes) have thoroughly investigated biblical and contemporary extra-biblical writings and reported that the word 'kephale' [head] was used in secular and religious Greek contemporary to Paul with the meaning of source, origin, sustainer, and not of ruler....

It was much later that the word kephale began to be used as 'authority' under the pressure of Latin usage, as evidenced in the writings of some post apostolic church fathers.

Taken from "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Bilezikian (1985) page 278

Newman,
Doesn't "source", "origin" and "sustainer" seem to bear out more authority even though the word isn't used? Just reading it, that's the impression I think is being conveyed.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Newman

In order to understand properly the meaning of "head" as used by the Apostle Paul, it is helpful to determine its meaning within the language spoken by Paul. The authors of such works as A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry G. Liddell and Roberts Scott (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1968), or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 10 volumes) have thoroughly investigated biblical and contemporary extra-biblical writings and reported that the word 'kephale' [head] was used in secular and religious Greek contemporary to Paul with the meaning of source, origin, sustainer, and not of ruler....

It was much later that the word kephale began to be used as 'authority' under the pressure of Latin usage, as evidenced in the writings of some post apostolic church fathers.

Taken from "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Bilezikian (1985) page 278

Do you see those as saying that the husband has authority over the wife to be saying that he is also the ruler in the cursed sense? I haven't viewed it that way.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Newman

Many have pondered about this verse and wondered why Paul spoke of only men being the image and glory of God instead of acknowledging that such was the case for women also (Gen 1:26-27).

Yet, Paul did not deny that women were likewise created. Instead, his statement went to the principle issue at hand, which was why women should wear coverings in worship, but men should not. His point was that women were a direct reflection upon man. Their actions were a reflection not only upon themselves, but their fathers, husbands, and brothers as well.

Society well understood that women could make or break their husbands (or whoever had legal authority over them and could bring disgrace upon a family).

This was a view expressed and embellished upon by Jesus ben Sirach, written the second century before Christ:
A daughter keeps her father secretly wakeful,
and worry over her robs him of sleep,
when she is young, lest she do not marry,
or if married, lest she be hated;
while a virgin, lest she be defiled
or become pregnant in her father’s house;
or having a husband, lest she prove unfaithful,
or though married, lest she be barren.
Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
lest she make you a laughing stock of your enemies,
a byword in the city and notorious among the people,
and put you to shame before the great multitude.
Do not look upon any one for beauty,
and do not sit in the midst of women;
for from them comes the moth,
and from them comes wickedness,
Better is the wickedness of man than a woman who does good;
and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace (Sir. 42:9-14 RSV).

So although women could bring shame to men, the converse was not true. Women were not disgraced by men since they had no real power to control them. When a man messed up, nobody (in that era) blamed it on the women in his household. After all, the man was considered the master of his universe. Thus men’s actions were a reflection upon God; while women’s actions brought the most immediate attention to their husbands, fathers and/or brothers.

I think this is the case many times today as well. Working in the domestic abuse field, the vast majority do not want to get divorced or leave their husbands. Their husband's behavior is what causes them to leave.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Newman,
I think in "any era" men generally are not blamed as much as the woman. My daughter would complain because I seemed to give our son a bit more liberty then she was afforded. I told her, "That's because you are a girl!" lol!

I think husbands blame wives like Adam blamed Eve. In societies like Islamic societies the women get blamed for most everything. In greater American society, I think that is not really true since most social service agencies are geared to help women and children. In the UPC I think women are blamed more for male sexual immorality, hence the view that women who wear make-up are like Jezebel, etc.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

I think husbands blame wives like Adam blamed Eve. In societies like Islamic societies the women get blamed for most everything. In greater American society, I think that is not really true since most social service agencies are geared to help women and children. In the UPC I think women are blamed more for male sexual immorality, hence the view that women who wear make-up are like Jezebel, etc.

ILG,
I was speaking about how a woman can be called a whore, but a man can get up and keep doing his thang. That has never changed, IMO.

It's also ridiculous to blame the "UPC women" on a man's sexual promiscuity. As I am sure men are to blame in many ways, but I've talked with a lot of women that are not doing their job correctly. They can't stand around crying in their milk and saying, "I was so tired, kids, etc." That's women in general, not just UPC women.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

ILG,
I was speaking about how a woman can be called a whore, but a man can get up and keep doing his thang. That has never changed, IMO.

It's also ridiculous to blame the "UPC women" on a man's sexual promiscuity. As I am sure men are to blame in many ways, but I've talked with a lot of women that are not doing their job correctly. They can't stand around crying in their milk and saying, "I was so tired, kids, etc." That's women in general, not just UPC women.

Oh, so much to say here, but I will limit it to just this one stupid thing.

A friend of mine is going through a divorce and her husband said he's going to blame her for him committing adultery since she won't be with him now.

He is abusive with her and they are getting a divorce.........yet it's going to be her fault that he's going to have to sin?

[ILG]

I was speaking about how a woman can be called a whore, but a man can get up and keep doing his thang. That has never changed, IMO.

There is some truth that people do think that way.

It's also ridiculous to blame the "UPC women" on a man's sexual promiscuity. As I am sure men are to blame in many ways, but I've talked with a lot of women that are not doing their job correctly. They can't stand around crying in their milk and saying, "I was so tired, kids, etc." That's women in general, not just UPC women.

Women are never to blame for a man's promiscuity. She may contribute to his decision by being "unaccessible" but she isn't the one who decided to be promiscuous.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Oh, so much to say here, but I will limit it to just this one stupid thing.

A friend of mine is going through a divorce and her husband said he's going to blame her for him committing adultery since she won't be with him now.

He is abusive with her and they are getting a divorce.........yet it's going to be her fault that he's going to have to sin?

Exactly. The ONLY reason God gave for divorce was adultery. Looks like he did that....not her...