Male Headship

[ebia]

I do not agree with your conclusions. You have mistakenly understood those bits of Scripture out of context.

LOL. It was me that put your Genesis 3 quote into it's context.

 

[Jig]

LOL. It was me that put your Genesis 3 quote into it's context.

Do you not want to address the actual point of my post?

 

[ebia]

Do you not want to address the actual point of my post?

Twice I addressed your point on a passage of scripture and you just skipped to another passage. I'm not playing that game.

 

[Jig]

Twice I addressed your point on a passage of scripture and you just skipped to another passage. I'm not playing that game.

I carefully and explicitly laid out my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Who's playing games?

 

[ebia]

I carefully and explicitly laid out my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Who's playing games?

It's a metaphor. I've no intention of following you through a whole series of biblical passages where I address your point in one and you just pull out another.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Here interesting wording between what David did (taking anothers wife) and the occassion to blaspheme and how its worded also in the NT similiarly (in respects to wives) and the word of God being blasphemed

2Sam 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

2Sam 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme...

Wives...

Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Other men arent the head of another mans wife, only her own husband is her head, she should be obedient to him (not to them) that the word of God be not blasphemed.

(Especially if a David wants to come sweep another mans wife off her feet) she should only be obedient to her own husband) and she should tell any David (that comes along) that she is not available.

But really, she wasnt being too discreet bathing out in the open like that either. So the women are likewise admonished to be discreet

(In case you have peeping David).

 

[Fireinfolding]

You know...I wonder if these two can be seen in the same light given the Lord speaks of the men covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out in Malichi and regardeth not thier offering...

For example Peter says (in relation to husbands and wives) this..

1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Then back here in Malichi (in respects to husbands and wives) this...

Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

Whereas it says also...

Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives,and be not bitter against them.

One deals treacherously against the wife of their youth and the other as dealing bitterly. To be bitter against them (the wives) is to deal bitterly against them, and given men have a head they must be in submission to it speaks of the husbands prayers (specifically) being hindered (in relation to the same).

In a way it would sound very similiarly to the heavens shut up as in the prayers of the saints ascend up before Him. Sorta like the heavens shut up or as ones prayers being hindered (even as) might be the case between husband and wife). It seems as if it has something to do with a wrong done on the husbands part (here). Nevertheless if the heavens being shut up, or as prayers hindered (in any way) is always followed by if they acknowledge their sins and repent he would hear and forgive, for He is faithful and just to forgive.

Not sure if they connect but thought they appeared to in someway which doesnt contradict the other in anyway.

Because we know (in prayer)

1John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.


Ephes 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Whereas contrarywise (in respects to prayers)

1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Again...

1John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Thought that was interesting, or (at least) worth considering since Peter speaks of this and it was the men who were adressed in relation to the wife of their youth and how they deal treacherously with their wives (which is something the LORD was apparently not pleased with).

Maybe men (in this instance) can actually become aware of something when (or if) their prayers are being hindered. Peter seems to indicate that the husbands prayers can be hindered in respects to his wife.

Which is very interesting. Because men have a head (of them) to Whom they must give an account to (and is answerable also to) his treatment of his own wife (so wow!)

So, the mans head (and obviously so, because we know WHO that is) has the power to hear your prayers (and answer them) or to regard none of your prayers (if He so chose not to). And what Peter makes plain is dishonouring ones wife actually puts the husband in a bad way before His own Head (and this in respects to his own prayers being hindered).

Checks and balances (so to speak) so as to possibly keep in check any "headtrips" (pun intended ofcourse)

 

[Jig]

It's a metaphor. I've no intention of following you through a whole series of biblical passages where I address your point in one and you just pull out another.

You are not doing a good job of elaborating. If Paul was writing metaphorically in 1 Corinthians 11:3 then what did these metaphors mean?

What do you think it means that "the head of every man is Christ"? Do you believe this means Christ holds a position of authority over man? If not, what does it mean?

 

[2thePoint]

What do you think it means that "the head of every man is Christ"? Do you believe this means Christ holds a position of authority over man? If not, what does it mean?

What kephale does not mean in koine Greek is "boss", but "source, origination". If Paul had meant to convey a pecking order he picked a very strange way of putting it, with Christ being last. Rather, he was saying that Christ as the agent of creation was the source of Adam, Adam was the source of Eve, and God (not just the Father) was the source of Christ. Since kephale is already being used in its figurative sense (the literal being "head"), we cannot add another figurative layer; we can't allegorize an allegory. So the question is not whether kephale is being used figuratively at the start of this passage about literal head coverings, but what the figurative meaning is. It is the anachronistic fallacy to read much later English meaning onto koine Greek. The Greeks at the time believed the body grew out of the head, and this is the meaning Paul uses in two passages: Eph. 4:15-16 and Col. 2:19. So "source" is the figurative meaning for the literal word "head", per not only the dictionary semantic range but Paul's own usage.

Which is all to say, authority is not part of this context.

 

[ebia]

You are not doing a good job of elaborating.

I'm doing a good job of not elaborating.

If Paul was writing metaphorically ...

I wasn't talking about Paul. I was talking about my own phrase "I'm not playing that game. "

 

[ViaCrucis]

1 Corinthians 11 is a fascinating passage. Especially where Paul seemingly throws a curve ball by implying that he had been speaking rather facetiously (I refer to verse 16) up until that point.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jig]

What kephale does not mean in koine Greek is "boss", but "source, origination".

I find it interesting that the TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) disagrees with you.

While many of my commentaries contain information on scholars who wish to translate kephale as "source". They find the dilemma to be whether or not Paul was speaking from a Jewish perspective or a Greek perspective. This is because the Jewish literature supports the idea that kephale means "ruler" and/or "chief". And the Greek literature seems to favor "source".

"Some scholars have examined the evidence and discovered that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, records a number of places where the term head figuratively means “chief” or “ruler.” Two examples are, “You have preserved me as the head of nations. People I did not know are subject to me” (II Sam. 22:44), and, “‘For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.… The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son’ ” (Isa. 7:8, 9). The accumulated evidence from the Septuagint, Philo, and Josephus is impressive."

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 18, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 365.

If Paul had meant to convey a pecking order he picked a very strange way of putting it, with Christ being last. Rather, he was saying that Christ as the agent of creation was the source of Adam, Adam was the source of Eve, and God (not just the Father) was the source of Christ.

With regard to the theory that kephale means "source":

"If we view verse 3 in terms of strict parallelism, difficulties arise. We certainly reject the thought that God created Christ, for Christ is eternal and uncreated. Even though Scripture reveals that God became his Father, and “it is from God the Father that Christ, as Son, derives his eternal being,” Christ was not “physically created from a piece taken out of God.” Nor is man physically taken out of Christ. Conclusively, if we seek to interpret the expression head as “source,” the parallels to other Scripture passages and those within verse 3 itself break down.

When we understand the expression head to mean “authority,” however, the parallels hold true. Christ has authority over man, man over woman, and God over Christ."

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 18, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 366.

Which is all to say, authority is not part of this context.

I believe the source I listed argued persuasively against this statement.

 

[2thePoint]

I find it interesting that the TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) disagrees with you.

I find it interesting that the Liddell/Scott Lexicon disagrees with you and the TDNT. For a deep study by someone who has read the Greek literature for pleasure since her youth, please see this resource.

When we understand the expression head to mean “authority,” however, the parallels hold true. Christ has authority over man, man over woman, and God over Christ."

God, meaning the whole Trinity and not just the Father, does not hold authority over Christ, since Christ is equally God (John 1:1-2) and "all the fullness of the deity dwells in him bodily" (Col. 2:9). When we understand that there cannot be hierarchy in One, we must dispense with the world's "chain of command" mindset and accept "not so among you", as Jesus told his disciples who squabbled over who would be the greatest, as men do today.


A collection of scriptures on humility and not "lording over": link.

 

[Jig]

I find it interesting that the Liddell/Scott Lexicon disagrees with you and the TDNT. For a deep study by someone who has read the Greek literature for pleasure since her youth, please see this resource.

The LSJ deals primarily with non-biblical and non-Jewish Greek literature (and is best used with classical Greek studies), as opposed to the TDNT. Within my post, I made mention that the dilemma is whether or not Paul was using kephale in its Jewish sense or in the secular Greek sense. This is because kephale clearly illustrates 'authority' within Jewish Greek literature, such as with the examples from the LXX.

Also, you failed to reconcile the difficulties of defining kephale as "source" within the context of this passage. If such a definition was what Paul was meaning, then the strict parallelism of the passage falls apart and is rendered obscure.

God, meaning the whole Trinity and not just the Father, does not hold authority over Christ, since Christ is equally God (John 1:1-2) and "all the fullness of the deity dwells in him bodily" (Col. 2:9).

While John 1:1-2 and Col. 2:9 teach that Jesus is God (and thus an equal part of the Trinity) they do not support your asserted position. Either way, the complementary view (my position) does not state that man and woman are unequal. Authority, within my position, has nothing to do with equality.

Remember, Jesus submitted to the will of the Father (Luke 22:42). Yet, even in submission they were equal.

 

[2thePoint]

The LSJ deals primarily with non-biblical and non-Jewish Greek literature (and is best used with classical Greek studies), as opposed to the TDNT. Within my post, I made mention that the dilemma is whether or not Paul was using kephale in its Jewish sense or in the secular Greek sense. This is because kephale clearly illustrates 'authority' within Jewish Greek literature, such as with the examples from the LXX.

The LSJ is simply not as narrow as Koine-only lexicons, and not to be brushed aside because it takes Greek in general as part of the context. Koine did not develop in a vacuum. That said, if you had spent any time at all checking the kephale link you'd know that the claims of it including, let alone emphasizing, "boss" as a meaning are on very thin ice.

But Paul did not tell us "I'm thinking Roman/Greek here" so it comes down to personal preference. Yet the immediate context is the "trump card" because even koine-only admits that the writers of the NT could use old words in new ways on occasion. So I see no clear dilemma or clear meaning of "boss" in Paul's usage, and in fact the contexts in which he uses it are at least as sensible with the meaning of "source". The parallelism follows creation order, not pecking order.

While John 1:1-2 and Col. 2:9 teach that Jesus is God (and thus an equal part of the Trinity) they do not support your asserted position.

Of course I disagree.

Either way, the complementary view (my position) does not state that man and woman are unequal. Authority, within my position, has nothing to do with equality.

Yes, it does, however unintentionally. To make one half the human race privileged in authority over the other is clear ontological hierarchy, and when hierarchy is based on ontology it is not a "role" but a statement of inferior being or essence. To say "because you are ______" you cannot (insert genetic quality here) is to make a declaration of inferior being. The "roles and headship" view cannot have it both ways: either men and women are functionally, ontologically equal or they are neither. Authority based upon genetics is clearly a matter of inequality of being. If it would seem wrong to make all blacks under authority of whites, then the same is true of gender. Jesus said "Not so among you" and left no loopholes based upon the flesh.

Remember, Jesus submitted to the will of the Father (Luke 22:42). Yet, even in submission they were equal. [/B]

Remember, Jesus' submission was for ALL OF US to follow, not just women or Gentiles or slaves. I completely and vehemently reject ESS (eternal subordination of the Son) as heresy and blasphemy because it turns one God into three of decreasing rank, or Tritheism. If Jesus, by virtue of who he is, is beneath the authority of the Father from eternity past to eternity future, he is a lesser God; there is no escaping this conclusion because it is based upon ontology. And let me point out to you that trying to map husband/wife to the Trinity not only fails in number (where is the Holy Spirit?) but in analogy, because NEVER does scripture map husband/wife to parent/child; that is disgusting.

 

[Yarddog]

Any thoughts?

I believe that the husband is the head of the household but I fail to see is the husband loving his wife as Jesus loved the Church.

Do we truly love our wives?

If we examine the great love that Jesus has for the Church and see what he did for the Church, then we, each, must examine how we love our wives. We are to be servants to each other and far too many times Christian men fail to serve their wives. Jesus raised us up and made us his brothers when he did not have to. He did that because he loves us and we should do the same.

Yes, we are the head of the household but we are also servants and men fail to do this in so many ways. Love your wives and children so that they have absolutely no doubt where they stand with you. Be prepared to give your all for them. Be prepared to die for them.

If we put God above all, all else will fall in line.

 

[Jig]

The LSJ is simply not as narrow as Koine-only lexicons, and not to be brushed aside because it takes Greek in general as part of the context. Koine did not develop in a vacuum. That said, if you had spent any time at all checking the kephale link you'd know that the claims of it including, let alone emphasizing, "boss" as a meaning are on very thin ice.

By using the term "boss" instead of "authority" in your argument you are practicing the fallacy of equivocation.

It is no mistake that you decided to use that specific term. You have already used it several times. That term carries negative connotations that do not align completely with the complimentary view. This view does not see the proper relationship between husband and wife as similar to boss and employee (or master and slave).

The complementary view is not synonymous with male chauvinism.

But Paul did not tell us "I'm thinking Roman/Greek here" so it comes down to personal preference. Yet the immediate context is the "trump card" because even koine-only admits that the writers of the NT could use old words in new ways on occasion. So I see no clear dilemma or clear meaning of "boss" in Paul's usage, and in fact the contexts in which he uses it are at least as sensible with the meaning of "source". The parallelism follows creation order, not pecking order.

I find it ironic that "source" is synonymous with "authority".

Source Synonyms, Source Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Yes, it does, however unintentionally. To make one half the human race privileged in authority over the other is clear ontological hierarchy, and when hierarchy is based on ontology it is not a "role" but a statement of inferior being or essence. To say "because you are ______" you cannot (insert genetic quality here) is to make a declaration of inferior being. The "roles and headship" view cannot have it both ways: either men and women are functionally, ontologically equal or they are neither. Authority based upon genetics is clearly a matter of inequality of being. If it would seem wrong to make all blacks under authority of whites, then the same is true of gender. Jesus said "Not so among you" and left no loopholes based upon the flesh.

Wow...you truly have no idea what the complementary view believes.

 

[2thePoint]

By using the term "boss" instead of "authority" in your argument you are practicing the fallacy of equivocation.

No. Boss means the same as authority, it's just a shorter word to keep typing. Rather, I suspect that you think authority is a "softer" word and hope to lessen the harsh reality of men lording over women by somehow turning "NO lording over" into "NICE lording over". But Jesus said "Not so among you".

It is no mistake that you decided to use that specific term. You have already used it several times. That term carries negative connotations that do not align completely with the complimentary view. This view does not see the proper relationship between husband and wife as similar to boss and employee (or master and slave).

It's a standing joke among us egalitarians that male supremacism uses a thick layer of flowery adjectives (kind, willing, joyful, benevolent, glad) to cover the stark reality that men rule because of their flesh. They choose those specific terms to hide this. The positive connotations are meant to make lording over seem righteous. An example is their choosing the father/son analogy rather than master/slave, though even sons get to grow up someday, which makes it truly an equivocation on the real meaning: men rule for life solely because of their genetalia.

The complementary view is not synonymous with male chauvinism.

Yes, it is. You are equivocating.

I find it ironic that "source" is synonymous with "authority".

Ah, the anachronistic fallacy: impose later foreign meanings onto ancient semantic ranges.

Wow...you truly have no idea what the complementary view believes.

Wow, you truly have no idea what Jesus taught about humility and lording over.

 

[Fireinfolding]

2Cr 10:8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

Authority can be unto edification (verses the destructive, or lording over kind)

Even Jesus shows this

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

Luke 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

Who come to serve not be served

John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.


John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

1Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.


Ephes 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

No greater love really. Paul even shows the authority the Lord gave him was unto edification (but contrasts against a destructive kind). As even love edifies. The Lordship of Christ being the very example to the men (as He is their head) to do likewise as he (as for his church) so likewise they toward their wives. A Lord who serves, isnt really a foreign concept for those in Christ. But Christ did point out to his disciples how others exercise their authority by lording over (which Peter likewise points out) and said its not to be so with you. Jesus gentleness made him great, and in his greatest (and being first, and cheif) in all things was a servant in the role of his Lordship (which was an example to them).

 

[2thePoint]

No greater love really. Paul even shows the authority the Lord gave him was unto edification (but contrasts against a destructive kind). As even love edifies. The Lordship of Christ being the very example to the men (as He is their head)

Jesus' example and teachings were never directed only at men. It is a giant leap to say:
1-- Head must mean boss
2-- Males are heads
3-- Therefore males are bosses

Jesus is the source of the church as Paul explained ("from whom the whole body grows..."). All those verses you cited about humility and service are for all believers, regardless of the flesh or society. Not one man is exempt; there is no fine print letting them off the hook when women are present. You even know that Paul defined authority as to build up rather than tear down, but holding women beneath men is tearing down, regardless of how nicely it may be exercised. Jesus is my role model too, and I will not allow anyone to get between me and my Savior. I have only one Head.

Also note that it is not the divinity of Christ that Paul tells husbands to emulate in Ephesians 5, but the love of Christ. Otherwise Paul would be teaching idolatry.

General statement not specifically aimed at you:

Jesus died for me; I am not saved by childbirth, role playing, or treating a man like a little Christ or God to me. I am an adult of sound mind and co-heir of eternal life, having the same Holy Spirit in me as any other believer has. Not a child. Not a Jezebel. Not anything else but someone for whom Christ died. If other believers want to usurp the place of Christ in my life, I can only shake the dust from my feet and find fellowship among believers who don't show favoritism or judge by the flesh.