[Angel4Truth]

Then lazy, you think the head covering, is not a literal head covering then?

[Lazy afternoon]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

Then lazy, you think the head covering, is not a literal head covering then?

Paul is doing what Jesus did in speaking of first creation things to teach truths.

He did that with bread and wine too, and it was not Pauls job or ours to interpret all those truths to individuals, only to speak the same as they did.

LA

[Desert Reign]

I thought I would cite Colossians from his other thread on the same subject. (By the way I don't have permission to cite it but I also have no need of such permission).

[10] “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
This “ power” here is firstly a reference to authority: because she is subordinate to male man, the female man must have a symbol on her head which signifies authority over her - a symbol which perpetually speaks to the fact that her headship lies not in herself, but elsewhere. (Therefore it is said not that such power is on her person, but on her head: her headship lies in a place other than her own head.)

And yet we cannot escape the fact that the word “authority” is not used, but “ power” , and moreover, a power which is over her by virtue of being on her. Thus we are compelled to not only understand this as a reference to authority over the woman, but power for the woman by virtue of her being under that authority.

I've underlined and bolded the idea in question that is incorrect.

Once again, Colossians errs through his ignorance of Greek. In this case though, there is no need to be too harsh on him for many others have made the same mistake. Here is the Greek text (transliterated for the benefit of those who can't read Greek)

10δια τουτο οφειλει η γυνη εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης δια τους αγγελους

dia touto ophelei he gune exousian echein epi tes kephales dia tous angellous

The one issue in contention is what does exousian echein epi tes kephales mean?

Epi, the preposition, means on or over. When used with the word exousia, this always means authority over something such as a captain has authority over his troops. Nowhere in ancient Greek literature does exousia mean some kind of object that represents authority. It always means the authority itself and when used with epi, what comes after the epi is what you have authority over.

So this passage clearly refers to the woman having the authority, not to someone having the authority over her. So, when in church, the woman is to have authority over her own head and not have a symbol indicating that she is under authority.

And if anyone wants to be contentious about this matter, just remember that there was no other practice in all the churches Paul was responsible for. Paul did away with the rabbinical practice of treating women like prostitutes, and he was not a woman hater.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

The point of there being neither male or female in Christ... is that you don't need your husband to be a believer in order to be a believer yourself. Likewise, if both husband and wife are unbelievers, the husband may decide to believe. Both can repent and be forgiven, individually if not together. And God does not look at either one and say, female you are not a male, or male you are not a female. Instead, we are welcomed with open arms, single or married, widowed or divorced.

Unfortunately, this interpretation is not supported by the text of Galatians. The context of the letter (for example Gal 2:11-14) shows Peter not treating the gentile believers equally with the Jewish believers in terms of prejudice and socialising. This is not centrally about salvation but about equality through faith. Paul concludes in Gal 3:28 that Jew and gentile believers are equal because they have the same faith in Christ. And as an afterthought he extends this to male versus female, slave versus free. Of course elsewhere in his writings he focuses more specifically on slaves and men versus women but for here, the context nevertheless indicates that social equality is the main concern.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Unfortunately, this interpretation is not supported by the text of Galatians. The context of the letter (for example Gal 2:11-14) shows Peter not treating the gentile believers equally with the Jewish believers in terms of prejudice and socialising. This is not centrally about salvation but about equality through faith. Paul concludes in Gal 3:28 that Jew and gentile believers are equal because they have the same faith in Christ. And as an afterthought he extends this to male versus female, slave versus free. Of course elsewhere in his writings he focuses more specifically on slaves and men versus women but for here, the context nevertheless indicates that social equality is the main concern.

You make good points, but I was explaining Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 so I believe what I have said stands.

You speak of equality of faith, and I don't think I have spoken against that but affirmed it even without these words though I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are meaning by the phrase. It does not mean we are to have women tell us what to do in the church, as an extreme example.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

You make good points, but I was explaining Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 so I believe what I have said stands.

You speak of equality of faith, and I don't think I have spoken against that but affirmed it even without these words though I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are meaning by the phrase. It does not mean we are to have women tell us what to do in the church, as an extreme example.

Faith makes us all as believers equal. This means that if there was a woman leader, you should not treat her any differently to if the leader was a man. And the same thing would apply to a slave. This is what Paul teaches because in the kingdom of God faith makes us all equals. It doesn't mean that any slave or any woman can become a leader but it does mean that none of them should be barred from leadership or made to undergo some kind of purification to rid them of the ignominy supposedly associated with their status. Making a woman wear a veil just because she is a woman is that kind of prejudice. In Galatians, the issue was making non-Jews undergo circumcision but it is the same issue with women and veils. The gospel sets us free from prejudice because God loves us all as much as each other and if God loves us all equally in Christ then we are not in a position to refuse that love to others.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Faith makes us all as believers equal. This means that if there was a woman leader, you should not treat her any differently to if the leader was a man. And the same thing would apply to a slave. This is what Paul teaches because in the kingdom of God faith makes us all equals. It doesn't mean that any slave or any woman can become a leader but it does mean that none of them should be barred from leadership or made to undergo some kind of purification to rid them of the ignominy supposedly associated with their status. Making a woman wear a veil just because she is a woman is that kind of prejudice. In Galatians, the issue was making non-Jews undergo circumcision but it is the same issue with women and veils. The gospel sets us free from prejudice because God loves us all as much as each other and if God loves us all equally in Christ then we are not in a position to refuse that love to others.

There is some way in which women are not to exercise authority over a man.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

There is some way in which women are not to exercise authority over a man.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Ah, yes. This is the infamous accusative infinitive construction. Equally possibly (and indeed much more plausibly) is the rendering

I do not allow a woman to teach that she is the author of (has authority over or takes precedence over) man - she should desist from saying (this).

This is much more plausible a meaning because paul gives as his scripural proof the passage from Genesis where God took Eve from the rib of the man. In other words Man was made first and woman was made from man. That refutes the notion that the woman came first. However, saying that because woman came second doesn't seem to be a good reason why she should not have authority over man.

And anyway, the verb authentein does not necessarily mean 'have authority over'. This is quite a different verb from 'echein exousian epi' used in 1 Corinthians. It rather has the sense of take precedence over or simply be the first of. It could also mean 'be the source behind'. I don't think it is neccessary to look further than the cult of Aphrodite, which taught that women came first and man second for the reason behind this teaching of Paul's.

[Desert Reign]

And another thing - which to me is crucial - saying that the woman was deceived and fell is exactly the opposite reason you would expect if she is not to be allowed to have authority over a man. Consider: Adam knew full well that if he ate from the TKGE he would die, for God tolde him directly. But Eve was deceived by the serpent, having presumably only heard this second-hand from Adam, in other words in her weakness. But Adam then went and deliberately disobeyed by following her lead. Now I can understand that a person who is deceived in their weakness can be forgiven but the person who deliberately disrespects the authority already given to him is surely the one who should be barred from being in authority over another? So the example given disqualifies Adam, not Eve. My alternative translation makes much better sense altogether. It really has nothing to do with women not being allowed to have authority over men.

[Tambora]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

And another thing - which to me is crucial - saying that the woman was deceived and fell is exactly the opposite reason you would expect if she is not to be allowed to have authority over a man. Consider: Adam knew full well that if he ate from the TKGE he would die, for God tolde him directly. But Eve was deceived by the serpent, having presumably only heard this second-hand from Adam, in other words in her weakness. But Adam then went and deliberately disobeyed by following her lead. Now I can understand that a person who is deceived in their weakness can be forgiven but the person who deliberately disrespects the authority already given to him is surely the one who should be barred from being in authority over another? So the example given disqualifies Adam, not Eve. My alternative translation makes much better sense altogether. It really has nothing to do with women not being allowed to have authority over men.

I can see your point here, at least in part.

1 Corinthians 7 KJV
(3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
(4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
(5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The benevolence between them is mutual, not exclusive to one over the other.
The power of their bodies is mutual, not exclusive to one over the other.
And to refrain from sexual union should be mutual, not exclusive to one over the other.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Ah, yes. This is the infamous accusative infinitive construction. Equally possibly (and indeed much more plausibly) is the rendering

I do not allow a woman to teach that she is the author of (has authority over or takes precedence over) man - she should desist from saying (this).

This is much more plausible a meaning because paul gives as his scripural proof the passage from Genesis where God took Eve from the rib of the man. In other words Man was made first and woman was made from man. That refutes the notion that the woman came first. However, saying that because woman came second doesn't seem to be a good reason why she should not have authority over man.

And anyway, the verb authentein does not necessarily mean 'have authority over'. This is quite a different verb from 'echein exousian epi' used in 1 Corinthians. It rather has the sense of take precedence over or simply be the first of. It could also mean 'be the source behind'. I don't think it is neccessary to look further than the cult of Aphrodite, which taught that women came first and man second for the reason behind this teaching of Paul's.

God has given man the responsibilty and authority in the home, as described in the Bible.

[Lazy afternoon]

Picking a verse out of context does not reveal the truth--

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon

Picking a verse out of context does not reveal the truth--

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

None of which changes the fact that authentein does not mean 'usurp authority over'. Nor does it change the fact that verse 12 is (could be read as) an infinitive construction. The infinitive construction in Greek (and Latin) is notoriously ambiguous.
You've bolded verse 11 as if it were important to your context, however, in the context I favour, it also fits very well because it is well known that women spend around 8 times as much time as men do talking. It fits well with the previous verse too in that women should not parade their femininity daubed with make-up and jewellery in church. In the same way they should not go around teaching that they are superior to men, the way the Aphrodite cult did. The context favours this interpretation at least as well as it does your interpretation.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

God has given man the responsibilty and authority in the home, as described in the Bible.

As described in the Bible, Christians are to be subject to one another. Which means that they must not do their own thing without reference to the rest of the body. It seems to me that the idea of the man having ultimate authority in the household negates this principle because he effectively does not need to take into consideration the wills of others. It also negates the principle stated in Genesis: God said it is not good for the man to be alone. Hence he made the woman as well. However, if he has to bear ultimate authority then he is still very much alone and the creation of the woman was ultimately not much of a help to him was it?

But I would be happy to discuss any passage in detail in the New Testament which you feel states that man has the ultimate authority in the home.

[Colossians]

Desert,

When used with the word exousia, this always means authority over something such as a captain has authority over his troops. Nowhere in ancient Greek literature does exousia mean some kind of object that represents authority. It always means the authority itself and when used with epi, what comes after the epi is what you have authority over.
As is usual with those who focus on words rather than logical and theological principles, you have no idea what you are talking about.

1. Spiritual principles dictate that one can only have authority when one is under authority.
2. The verse (v10) begins "for this reason". That reason, is v9. V9 states that man is not made for woman, but woman for man. So v10 tells us most clearly that the power on a woman is one of power over her, primarily: it is based on the fact that he was not made for her, but she for him. Then when she is under authority, she has authority, just as Christ only has authority because He is under authority.

So your usual truncated modus operandi, where you strain at a gnat and consider the words in isolation from the body of the text, leads you astray, so much so that you essentially produce a feminist result.





"And yet we cannot escape the fact that the word “authority” is not used, but “ power” , and moreover, a power which is over her by virtue of being on her. Thus we are compelled to not only understand this as a reference to authority over the woman, but power for the woman by virtue of her being under that authority."
I've underlined and bolded the idea in question that is incorrect. Once again, Colossians errs through his ignorance of Greek.
Er...rather, learn to read.

You have completely misappropriated that which you have underlined. Read the very next sentence.