1 Corinthians 11:10

[Digging4Truth]

I find this verse to be interesting when I look a little deeper.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

Let's look at the word that is translated as power...

Power - Greek for 1849
Pronunciation Guide
exousia {ex-oo-see'-ah}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 2:562,238 from 1832 (in the sense of ability)
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
a) leave or permission

2) physical and mental power
a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises

3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)

4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
a) universally

1) authority over mankind
b) specifically

1) the power of judicial decisions
2) of authority to manage domestic affairs
c) metonymically

1) a thing subject to authority or rule
a) jurisdiction

2) one who possesses authority
a) a ruler, a human magistrate
b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates

d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself

e) the sign of regal authority, a crown

I originally copy/pasted this in for the references to right, privilige, power of choice etc but then noticed this reference at the bottom. This word can actually mean veil.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have a veil on [her] head because of the angels....

It is interesting to see how much sense that makes in the context of the conversation.

Interesting...

[MrsMcD]

Are you still digging for the truth?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by MrsMcD

Are you still digging for the truth?

(inhales to verify)

Yep... still breathing... still digging for truth.

I'm not making a statement... I just found it interesting and would like to offer it for discussion among those who would care to do so.

I lived several decades of my christian life under the delusion that, although I was sure there was some little tidbit out there that I wasn't privy to, I basically had all the truth anyone would need.

But I'm feeling much better now.

Digging is good for the soul.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Garfield

I have never heard this possible translation discussed EVER.

Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.

However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.

However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.

Like a crown?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Most commentators (prior to, say, the 1950s ro so) understood this to mean the headcovering was a "symbol of authority", meaning the woman demonstrated her submission to the Divine Order by the wearing of the headcovering, perhaps as an object lesson to the angels regarding authority, order, and so forth.

However, I think a close look at what is actually said shows that the headcovering is NOT merely a "symbol of authority". That point of view takes "Exousia" to refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman. The problem however is the construction actually seems to be saying the woman is to have AUTHORITY on her head. That is, the headcovering IS the authority.

Originally Posted by tbpew

Like a crown?

I'm not getting this.

Paul said the woman ought to have authority on her head.

He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of her husband's authority.

He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of being under authority.

He DID say she ought to have authority on her head.

What a lot of people do not realise is that Paul's teaching when put into practice serves as an incredible object lesson.

I will try to go through this step by step later today.

But Paul's actual words are "ought to have authority on her head"...

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Paul said the woman ought to have authority on her head.

He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of her husband's authority.

He did NOT say she ought to have a symbol of being under authority.

He DID say she ought to have authority on her head.

What a lot of people do not realise is that Paul's teaching when put into practice serves as an incredible object lesson.

I will try to go through this step by step later today.

But Paul's actual words are "ought to have authority on her head"...

Well brother.... in the closest english representation of the greek writings of his words...Paul's actual words were....

opheilo gune echo exousia epi kephale

The word translated power in that verse is exousia.

Exousia can mean the following things...

Power - Greek for 1849
Pronunciation Guide
exousia {ex-oo-see'-ah}
TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 2:562,238 from 1832 (in the sense of ability)
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
a) leave or permission

2) physical and mental power
a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises

3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)

4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
a) universally

1) authority over mankind
b) specifically

1) the power of judicial decisions
2) of authority to manage domestic affairs
c) metonymically

1) a thing subject to authority or rule
a) jurisdiction

2) one who possesses authority
a) a ruler, a human magistrate
b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates

d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself

e) the sign of regal authority, a crown

Among the things this word can mean... it CAN mean... a sign of authority (such as a crown) and it can mean a sign of a husbands authority over his wife (such as a veil)

With these being possible definitions of the term I don't understand how you can say with such absolute resolve that Paul did NOT say that she ought to have a symbol on her head and Paul DID say she ought to have authority on her head.

Now... you can make the statement... with all of the authority you can muster... that the King James translaters DID and/or DID NOT say these things. If you stance is that the King James translators are absolutely and completely inerrant in their translation of the word of God then you could make such a statement on that premise.

But with a "sign of authority" or a "sign of a husbands authority" over her being the possible definitions available I cannot see how you are saying this so authoritatively.

It could even be that in the syntax that it could not mean this or that... I don't know... but you didn't mention anything like that... you have just said... with complete authority... that Paul did not say that.... and it would seem that this would at least be a possibility.