-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Women in politics/leadership roles
- Thread starter Gina B
- Start date
Look at the context:
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.
Paul discusses the hierarchy of societal relations prevalent in the world at that time: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relation to his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church with respect to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man, woman.
But then, Paul goes oon to say:
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
So Paul concludes by saying that, though woman has a SYMBOL of authority over her head, the husband and wife are, in reality, equally interdependent, and that both are equally of God, who is authority of them both.
Jailminister
New Member
JohnV said:
1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Let that sink in. This is not a put down to the women. My wife is my completer and helpmeet for me. She is answerable to me, as I am answerable to Christ. She honors Christ, by honoring me.
Johnv, No it is you who has it wrong. I read what you posted to Gunther and you are so far away from the truth. As far as salvation man and womwn are equal, however as far as position wise here on earth that is not true. As the husband I am responsible to God for my treatment and leadership of my wife and children. I am the head of the family, just as Christ is head of His bride, the church. I am not to use this authority as a club, but I am to use it properly for leadership and protection. Your interpretation of 1 Corinthinians 11 is incorrect.
1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Let that sink in. This is not a put down to the women. My wife is my completer and helpmeet for me. She is answerable to me, as I am answerable to Christ. She honors Christ, by honoring me.
Jailminister
New Member
JohnV said
I love my wife just as Christ loves His bride, but Christ bride is a servant to Christ.
I am glad you used the word aide. An aide is some one who works for and under someone else with a definite goal. They assist their boss. Does that may them less important? NO. Does that make them a lower quality person? NO. My wife is my helpmeet(aide) in the goals God has given me to do. She helps me. GET IT. We are equal in Christ, but not in position. If you don't like the way God designed it just write Him an e-mail with your complaint.
I love my wife just as Christ loves His bride, but Christ bride is a servant to Christ.
The Hebrew, `ezer referrs to working "with", not working "for".
The husband is not the boss of the wife. You cannot be boss when the two are one. There is no "position" of one over the other. The husband is not "above" his wife. He is spiritually responsible for his wife and family.
God designed it well. But God did not design it in the way you think He did.
Notice that Paul doesn't tell women to submit to their husbands, he says to submit to their husbands AS TO THE LORD. This does not, however, mean that men are not to submit to their wives. For we're also instructed to submit to each other as to Christ.
Likewise, Paul tells husbands to love love their wives as Christ loved the church. This does not, however, mean that women are not to love their men. For we're instructed to love each other as He loved us.
Paul does not give one spouse power to tell the other what to do, such as how to vote, how to drive, how to brush their teeth, or how to wipe themselves after going to the bathroom. This is a biblical fallacy.
You forget that Christ says "I no longer call you follwers,, but friends". He affirms this by washing the feet of his disciples. A Christlike husband serves his wife and loves her. Likewise, a Christlike wife serves her husband and loves him.
[ September 18, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
Taufgesinnter
New Member
Your post sounds good except that in 1 Cor. 11, it says that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman. Sorry to introduce Scripture into this little fight. </font>[/QUOTE]In the Greek, there's a definite article for Christ being the head of every man. There's no article for head in the clause about women, so wouldn't that mean the man is A head of woman? Thus, there is an organism that has two heads, for a woman has a man has her head, but ultimately, Christ is her head. She is responsible to her own conscience led by the Spirit before God; if she were ever to obey her husband in doing something she knew was wrong, she would be wrong.
Of course, this isn't even addressing what the word 'head' (kephale) really means.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
Look at the context:
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.
Paul discusses the hierarchy of societal relations prevalent in the world at that time: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relation to his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church with respect to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man, woman.
But then, Paul goes oon to say:
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
So Paul concludes by saying that, though woman has a SYMBOL of authority over her head, the husband and wife are, in reality, equally interdependent, and that both are equally of God, who is authority of them both. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, if you look closely, Paul didn't argue in the direction of any ascending or descending authority, but in terms of headship: Christ is the head (source) of every man, as creator, and the man is a source of woman, at her creation, and God is the source of Christ.
Another point is that the Greek nowhere says or even implies "a symbol of" in verse 10. Everywhere else that the phrase appears in the NT, it is correctly rendered "have authority over." Here, a woman is said to "have authority over her head." The Greek phrase refers to someone having fiat power by the subject's own will over the object of the preposition. Since the woman does not have authority over the man in this passage, the double entendre must have been dropped, and is referring to her actual head. She is to exercise control over her own head as she sees fit. Maybe it's a reference back to where she's given the option of shaving her head--I dunno. But I thought it an interesting point.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
I am glad you used the word aide. An aide is some one who works for and under someone else with a definite goal. They assist their boss. Does that may them less important? NO. Does that make them a lower quality person? NO. My wife is my helpmeet(aide) in the goals God has given me to do. She helps me. GET IT. We are equal in Christ, but not in position. If you don't like the way God designed it just write Him an e-mail with your complaint.
I love my wife just as Christ loves His bride, but Christ bride is a servant to Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]So you think you are God's boss, and that He works for and under you? I only ask because the same word is used to refer to God working with people as their helper. The word implies nothing about subordination.
Hmmm.... yes, you bring up something interesting, that the chapter incorporates discussion over literal headcoverings. We know that the custom of covering one's head was commonlace in several of the societies at that time.
I must study this a bit. I'd be curious as to what you think.
Jailminister
New Member
Oh well JohnV, You are hopeless.
Have a good day!! (If your wife will let you)
Have a good day!! (If your wife will let you)
Head does not mean "source" anywhere in the N.T. or in common greek. That is a definition made up and used by the hyperleft and feminists to support their already determined position. If "source" is correct, then God is the "source" of Christ. Let us not mix Jehovah's Witness theology into the discussion.
The Greek word kephale is rightly translated as "head," but conveys a metaphoric understanding of integral connection to the body. This passage is commonly misinterpreted to mean "chief," "leader," or "authority over" something, in this case, the wife. This misinterpretation then gets carried over into another of the "prohibition" passages, 1 Tim. 2:11-12, in which "authority over" is traditionally given the status of key phrase when proof-texting the practice of keeping women silent and/or out of certain positions of church leadership to which God calls them.
I think both these passages are so misunderstood and misinterpreted not so much because they are not adequately exegeted (though that is often the case), but because of the warped understanding the church historically has had of what godly authority entails. Specifically holding or exercising authority over other human beings is never commended in the New Testament writings, though Christians are in several places reminded to yield to the authority of human institutions such as government and slavery. What is commended, however, is the acceptance of God's authority to exercise one's God-given gifts within the body, with confidence and the Holy Spirit's empowerment. In other words, I don't see a person being an authority or wielding authority over others, ever being addressed scripturally except to condemn such practices.
In English, the word "head" means literally the physical head of one's body and figuratively the leader of a body of people. The two meanings are intertwined. Not so in Greek, where two different and distinct words are translated "head." One of these is arche, which means "head" in terms of leadership and point of origin. But Paul doesn't use this word here. Instead, Paul used the word kephale, which means "head," as part of one's body. It was also used to mean "foremost" in terms of position (as a capstone over a door, or a cornerstone in a foundation). It was never used to mean "leader" or "boss" or "chief" or "ruler." Kephale is also a military term. It means "one who leads," but not in the sense of "director," "general," or "captain," or someone who orders the troops from a safe distance; quite the opposite. A kephale was one who went before the troops, the leader only in the sense of being the first one into battle.
A good way to compare this in a contemporary setting is to say that the Anaheim Angels of 2002 were the kephale (leaders) of all other baseball teams. But they were not the arche (authorities) over the other baseball teams, because being at the head of the pack gave them no authoritative power over the other baseball teams.
Jailminister
New Member
johnV said:
Bad analogy. The headship given in 1 Corinthinans 11, was by God. Not by some man made organization. GOD SAID, God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. GET USED TO IT. (if your wife will let you)
Bad analogy. The headship given in 1 Corinthinans 11, was by God. Not by some man made organization. GOD SAID, God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. GET USED TO IT. (if your wife will let you)
I'm not married, so I find your jab insulting. I am, however, dating a Godly woman who has a master's degree in bible education, who understands 1 Cor 11 as I do, which is what the author intended.
The problem is that you're using the English definition of head, not the original Greek definition.
God said man is the kephale (head, as it relates to the body; one who goes before) of the woman. God DID NOT say man is the arche (head, as in authoritative leader). By switching the definitions, 1Cor 11 becomes perverted from its original meaning, and its message thus strays from the author's original intent.
Jailminister
New Member
Johnv, I was being a little humorous with you about the wife comment. I pray that if you get married to this lady, that you will be very happy and be the head of your house as God intended you to be. Now let's look at the Greek word,kephale, besides its natural significance, is used (a) figuratively in Rom 12:20, of heaping coals of fire on a "head" (see COALS); in Acts 18;6, "Your blood be upon your own heads," i.e., "your blood-guiltiness rest upon your own persons," a mode of expression frequent in the Old Testament, and perhaps here directly connected with Eze 3:18,20; 33:6,8; see also Lev 20:16; 2Sa 1:16; 1Ki 2:37; (b) metaphorically, of the authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of the husband in relation to the wife, 1Cor 11:3; of Christ in relation to the Church, Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:19; of Christ in relation to principalities and powers, Col 2:10. As to 1Cr 11:10, taken in connection with the context, the word "authority" probably stands, by metonymy, for a sign of authority, the angels being witnesses of the preeminent relationship as established by God in the creation of man as just mentioned, with the spiritual significance regarding the position of Christ in relation to the Church; cp. Eph 3:10; it is used of Christ as the foundation of the spiritual building set forth by the Temple, with its "corner stone," Mat 21:42; symbolically also of the imperial rulers of the Roman power, as seen in the apocalyptic visions, Rev 13:1,3; 17:3,7,9.
Maybe we can just have our own opinions and go from there. I know the way God has showed me, works.
Maybe we can just have our own opinions and go from there. I know the way God has showed me, works.
Thank you. I appreciate it. She's indeed marriage material for me. Ask me again around this time next year, and we'll see
I think we can do that. Interestingly, you've indicated that, while you believe that head means authority, your demonstrated that you treat your own wife as an equal, which is to be commended as a Christian husband. As for the meaning of the Greek text, suffice it to say we've both posted our views, thus allowing others to study and cme to their individual conclusions.Maybe we can just have our own opinions and go from there. I know the way God has showed me, works.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
Head does not mean "source" anywhere in the N.T. or in common greek. That is a definition made up and used by the hyperleft and feminists to support their already determined position. If "source" is correct, then God is the "source" of Christ. Let us not mix Jehovah's Witness theology into the discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]True, if source is correct, that might mean that Christ had been eternally begotten of the Father. Sorry. But with head, it might mean that Christ is subordinate to the Father and therefore not His co-equal--actually, that sounds more like the Jehovah's Witnesses to me. The point is that Paul used kephale and what kephale meant (and source has been well-attested by a detailed search of ancient Greek literature)--how either translation works out your christology is tangential to the issue of women, I think.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
As I said, that's off-topic.