Cheryl Schatz

Okay, starting back with new numbering from Mark’s new response.

1. I do love the way Egals always fall back to old mate Cyril as if he determines all. Let’s share abit about him. First he is 5th Century AD and of course is interpreting his view of scripture. If you want to rely on him Cheryl, why not introduce the many other early theologians who didn’t see it the way Cyril did. Now that would be a fair account of history. In fact the people closest to Jesus and Paul in the early centuries, never interpreted the scriptures this way…let’s not ignore that.

Mark, you are the one who said that anytime head was used with people it meant authority. That is a blanket statement. I gave you a quote from Cyril and gengwall gave you a quote from the Bible. That is enough witnesses to disprove a blanket statement about authority.

2. Gengwell- in 1 Cor 12 does the text in the slightest state that person a is the ‘head’ of person b. No it doesn’t! And every other account we have of person a being the head of person b, it is ALWAYS understood authoritatively. The use of ‘kephale’ in these texts is in no way similar what so ever…

Give me a break! It is a head metaphor. It is about people. It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, but instead of proving your point, you wish to define the opposition out of existence. And you have yet to even prove your point.

Now you may want to believe that you are superior to your wife and that you have the right to take your authority over her, but we are desiring to follow the Bible. It is a contradiction for one passage to provide for lordship by gender and then another passage to say that we are not to have lordship by anyone regardless of gender.

So tell me why would Paul use words of equality in a passage that is supposed to be about superiority?

I have only a little time left and need to get other things done.

Mark your last point.

5. Please don’t read too much into my comment about the relationship between Chapter 7 and 11. If we just play semantic games with my words it will never help our discussions. My point is that Paul does make a connection with Chapter 7 therefore that is one reason why I see this as dealing with husband/wife. However the context is not the same, nor his argument so it is not a problem to see this as husband/wife over men/women.

Since the book of 1 Corinthians is one long letter, the artificial divisions are not in the original. If Paul was talking about authority in chapter 11 we certainly could connect it to the only time that he actually uses the term in relation to the husband and that is in chapter 7. I understand why you don’t want to bolster your proof of the husband’s authority by going back to chapter 7. For chapter 7 as well as chapter 11 show equal responsibility and equal dependence. In fact there is not even one place where Paul gives the husband authority over the wife where the authority exists in a vacuum. Chapter 7 is the only place where either husbandly or wifely authority is appealed to and from there on servanthood and love and consideration of the other is the theme of the day.

If we deny that this could be dealing with husband/wife on the grounds of application to everyone we not only miss the point of Paul’s argument but we must then ignore a lot of other passages in which Paul deals with certain people e.g. Eph 5 and 6 do not apply to everyone.

Who is denying that “head” is in regarding to the husband alone and not all men? I think you are misunderstanding once again. I, for one, deny that 1 Cor. 11 makes all men the “head” of all women. But I do agree that the husband is the head “of” not “over” his own wife.

Dave,

i think that lion has make up on Cheryl.

I think Mel Gibson has make up on.

Now I am confused.

He-He, and I thought that no one could have a come back after that! Honestly my side is really hurting. I think Mark was right when he said that this one would turn into a dance floor!!!

ha, ha, ha…(still laughing)

Mark said:

4. Now about verse 11 and 12. It is important to remember Paul’s injunction at the beginning of verse 11 (plen) which corresponds to his previous argument. Since this is the case, and if the previous verses are dealing with authority (which I think they are) one must read verses 11 and 12 in attachment to the rest. They are not a separate unity. That is why the argument flows through in my opinion. Not to mention he qualifies it with the natural and churches of God arguments…it fits nicely.

Honestly I am feeling like a dunce today.

I can’t understand what Mark said in the paragraph above. Can anyone understand this and interpret it for me?

Ah, back to the serious.

Mark,
You said:

3. In relation to head covering- since the passage has nothing to do with mourning and is clearly dealing with husband/wife relationships it is easy to make the parallel. There is no benefit in bringing in all these other non related topics when the context of the passage is not dealing with those.

gengwall,

Oh Noooooo! Cheryl, do you not understand men at all? You pick the cowardly lion! Sheez.

You guys are WAY too much fun! Believe it or not I didn’t think about the “cowardly” part when I posted it. I haven’t quit laughing!

Okay, this one should do:

gengwall and Dave,
I am totally distracted. I am having way too much fun with this one.
Barbliblog? I still can’t get over that one. My side hurts.
Time to add some manly distraction with no pink.

Dave,

Barbiblog?

Ah ha, ha, ha! You are a total hoot!

Mark,

2. Now in relation to ‘kephale’ I am a bit perplexed. I think once Cheryl posts my other paper which does show that kephale can mean authority it might help.

We have all agreed that what kephale does mean will be determined by the context in the passage. This post of yours is ultimately way more important than your other one. I will post that later.

But until then, since the issue at hand here is between ‘people’ and since anytime kephale is used between people it denotes authority it is easy to see it working here.

Mark again you are assuming what you have yet to prove. You say that “anytime” people are involved, head means authority but this is not true.

Suzanne has posted this example that disproves your theory (http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/11/orphism-and.html)

Therefore of our race he become first head [kephale], which is the source [arche], and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being: indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. From Cyril of Alexandria

Clearly Cyril is talking about point of origin or source and not the meaning of authority over.

Ah yes, I knew this one would spark good discussion!

On your answer #1:

You will soon see that ‘God’ (Theos) is Paul’s preferred term for ‘Father’

When Paul uses the term “Father” we know that he isn’t talking about Christ, but if you are saying that Paul meant “Father” alone when he said God, then how do you explain verse 12? Is not Jesus the One whom are things were created by Him, for Him and through Him?

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.

If you are going to be consistent, then you must say that Paul was only referring to the Father in verse 12.

1 Cor 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Is this what you are saying?

Dave,
Good point about the teachers are eligible for being elders. Marks thought that only elders can teach is not supported anywhere by the scriptures.

Another thing about the term “Christ”, this is not a term used for the LORD of hosts in the OT. It is a term in prophecy for the coming of the Messiah and it is the term used of the humanity of Jesus. The fact that the bread of life came down from heaven (from God) shows His connection and origin with God. It is a unity expressed not a hierarchy exercised.

In the same way the first flesh (the man) was used as a building block for a new life (the woman). The connection between the two is of unity expressed not a hierarchy exercised.

sm,
The woman’s hair was a part of her attraction. Once she was married no other man was to see her hair lest there be a lust problem. Her head hair was equivalent to her private parts and showing her hair in public at any time was equivalent to her undressing. It was shameful.

John Lightfoot a Hebrew scholar who wrote his commentaries in the mid 1800’s gave a challenge for anyone to show where the head covering was ever a sign of subjection. The fact is that it isn’t a sign of subjection, it is a sign of modesty for women and a sign of personal shame or sorrow for both men and women.

So if a woman uncovered her head in public worship in order not to shame Christ, she could be shaming her husband if he was not a believer and held to the uncovering of the hair as a shame. It was a real dilemma for women.

The fact that women no longer cover their heads shows that the cultural symbol of shame at uncovering the hair is no longer an issue.

It is interesting that complementarians have not been able to answer why the head covering is not required today if the covering symbolizes the woman’s submission. Many will try to say that her attitude of submission is equivalent to the head covering but if this was so, then why would the woman’s attitude not be good enough in 1 Cor. 11? Why were some women still wearing a head covering when they prayed and prophesied? The complementarian argument just doesn’t hold up because they have missed the significance of the spiritual meaning of the head covering. When they miss that meaning that high lights our shame, they also end up missing the meaning of head and glory. It is all tied in together. Some complementarians even go so far as to say that only the man has God’s glory and even some who say that only the man was made in the direct image of God. The attitude that brings out this kind of male pride is actually contradicted by 1 Cor.11:12.

Our attitude is to be Christ-like as a servant not as one who claims to be the only gender who is allowed to show off God’s glory and the only gender who rightfully has the mandate to speak for God. That is a humanistic prideful attitude in opposition to Paul’s words that show the equality we have in Christ. Rather we need to humble ourselves to learn from each other and to treat each other as more valuable than we are.

Amen!

gengwall,
LOL!

It’s attached to the “bodyship” 8)

Also the issue of glory in 1 Cor. 11 here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/04/paul-refutes-a-faulty-tradition/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/01/the-man-is-the-image-and-glory-of-god/

sm,
The real problem cannot be identified until one understands why the traditional practice of men wearing a head covering in prayer and service to God was forbidden by Paul. This ties into the reason why women were different than men in that they had two heads and not one.

The issue is all about shame. The head covering was used to cover the person’s shame of sin as they approached God. I noticed that Mark does not discuss the meaning of this Jewish nor does he explain why the head covering brings Jesus shame. Without an explanation of this shame, there is no connection between “head” in verse 3 and the “glory” in verse 7. While shame covers (as Adam and Eve covered themselves in the garden because of their shame) and glory uncovers (we were meant to reflect the glory of God and not cover it up.

Is wearing a covering to cover over our shame honoring to Jesus? Here are posts on 1 Cor. 11 that discuss the issue of this shame and the issue of bringing glory to our “head”:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/06/17/shaming-the-head-1/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/12/shaming-the-head-2/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/

Mark,
I am not even convinced that you understand the Hebrew scholar correctly. Is he really stating that men have taken the liberty to add things to God’s word and God was fine with that? The first consideration that I would have is that you have misunderstood Robin Routledge. The quote you gave doesn’t really say that there was a change in the manuscripts although if he is saying that men actually changed things in the Hebrew Scriptures there are more than enough liberal Hebrew scholars who will pat him on the back. Who else that is not a liberal has dared to say that God’s Word has been changed by men and that this is a good thing?

One day we will all stand before our God and give an account of ourselves to Him. I choose to believe God and thus it fits my world view (belief in the absolute Sovereignty of God) to find solutions to the difficulties in a way that honors Him and doesn’t make Him a liar. If someone wants to believe that even though God said that we are not allowed to add or remove from His Word but that this doesn’t count if one has a good motive, then they are showing that they don’t really trust God to be Sovereign over His word. God’s word is holy and if some believe that they can change the original text without having to answer to God, then what else will these people freely allow to be added to the Scriptures? And how does one answer a Mormon who believes that men had the power to remove important doctrines from the Bible? One who accepts that God’s Word can be changed at will should consider it also possible that men removed Mormon “truths”.

We are filled with liberals here in Canada. Parishioners, pastors, bible scholars, so many no longer believe that God’s word is the standard for faith and practice since their own interpretation becomes the thing that they measure everything else by. It started with liberal thought. Did Jesus really say the words in the Bible? Many have “voted” that yes He said some things and no He didn’t say other sayings. Apparently the apostles got lots of things wrong as they were inaccurate about their memory of what Jesus said and so we don’t really need to listen to these words. Let’s just love one another and carry on with our lives with our own moral standard, is the theme of the liberal church here in Canada. Why should I listen to any more “scholars” who want to treat God’s Word as less than a Sovereign act of God? For if a mere human is needed to correct an error that God inspired in the original then this “God” is to be pitied. He gets it wrong just like we all do. He is fallible and makes mistakes and then hopes that no one will notice when he flubs it. Maybe he is just the Mormon God who had to learn to become God and he is still learning.

As you can see, I get my dander up anytime the Word of God is dismissed in a way that makes it merely human in origin as a word that needs correcting would obviously be. End of rant.

Mark,
Thanks for your exegesis. I did notice that you made a classic mistake in your work. It is called Begging the Question.

Begging the question (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

You were to show us by an exegesis of the passage that “head” means “authority over” or “superiority over another” but all you have done is assumed this meaning without showing it in the passage. There is no explicit or implicit words in 1 Cor. 11 that show that Paul is telling the man to take authority over the woman or that there is something that he has that shows his authority over her. Rather than showing us the man’s authority in the passage, you have just assumed it.

What is also especially odd to me is that the passage that Sue quoted in 1 Cor. 7 where the man’s authority is actually given, you downplay this authority and rename it to “respect”. You said:

Paul is indeed portraying a mutuality of respect for each others body in sexual union.

Paul actually said that a man has “authority over” his wife’s body. Why did you change it to “respect”? Perhaps the answer is obvious. It is because Paul says that the wife as “authority over” her husband’s body. It is mutual authority of the other person’s sexuality. Once you reworded that authority to “respect” it is easy to ignore the fact that the wife is given equal authority. Yet in 1 Cor. 11, there is no authority of the husband over the wife spoken about.

While I was waiting for you to finish writing this piece, I was quite interested to see how you would going to explain how “superiority” or “authority over” was actually the theme and meaning of “head” in this passage. But there was no explanation at all. You just assumed it. In fact if you assume “superiority” or “authority over” in verse 12 as you do, you would have to assume that now the woman has “superiority” or “authority over” the man in the same verse.

1 Cor 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

The fact that origins are highlighted in this verse shows a connection to “head” as origin or source not as “superiority”. How one can see the man as in a position of superiority from verse 12 is beyond me. I was very curious to see how you would deal with the verse to prove your point. Assuming is not proving a point.

More points later.

pinklight,
I fixed up the quotes and removed the double post. The only thing that you did wrong was to forget the / mark. You started the quote right by putting the “quote” but at the end of the quote you need to end with /quote to finish it off. I can always fix it up on this end.

Oh and glad that you liked the picture. I am going to bed now. I think most people are snoring at this time of night. I am sure it will be lively by tomorrow.

Okay, I found the problem. It was the 8 and the bracket. I added a space so the software wouldn’t think you were trying to make a cool smile. That is what 8 and bracket does.

See. 8)

This blog program takes a colon and a bracket to mean a smilie. I will fix it up. We wouldn’t want anyone to get the wrong impression. On my way to fix it.

I am going to be bad and respond to Mark’s last comment here.

Yes, I too wish I had a wiggly-waggily dog. My one and only dog had to be put down before we moved and I miss him a lot. He had unconditional love for me and I really liked that.

those who retold the stories

So anonymous people retold the stories by rewriting them and changing them?

While not departing from the essential historical details, the narrator might, nonetheless, choose not to report the ipsissima verba of characters in the narrative because he wants to make a particular point…

So the rewriters were now called “narrators”? These narrators have a “point” that they want to make and they feel free to change the text of God’s word to do that? How did the Jewish people react to an addition to God’s word?

And how did they manage to change all of the copies of God’s word. Did they go and take every single copy and make their changes? How is it that God was not able to preserve any of the original and only the changed copies were preserved? Or are there any of the originals out there that weren’t changed that we can compare these changed copies to so that we can know that this is what was done? Where in history is this recorded? Would it not be a big deal for “narrators” to make additions to the text and there not be a record of such an act?

This is what the Mormons tell me. They say that there was a group of men who decided to change the Bible. They apparently went around and were able to hand change every one of the copies of the Bible. They removed “precious truths” from the copies because they didn’t like these “truths”. They say that the removal of these “truths” has tainted the Word of God.

So you have accepted a view that the first writing of the Bible wasn’t good enough and some narrators had the power to take the protected copies of all of the Scriptures from each book (remember it was not one “Bible” but many books) and without anyone knowing what they have done and without a historical record of their additions, they changed all the words of “God” in all of the books before Abraham and replaced it with YHWH? Really? But of course they made some huge errors in forgetting to change some of the “God” references and they surprisingly left them this way on every copy. They must have had a special memory to know which ones they changed to YHWH and which ones they left as “God”. And they were able to make this switch on every single book and every single copy without getting caught? And these “narrators” must have had a lot of secret help because the books of the Bible spanned many generations so there were secret “narrators” having to collect every copy from every new book to change it so that no one would know what the original said because they apparently feared that God might be proven as a liar and they didn’t want that for Him.

I didn’t believe the Mormon tale of a secret change to the Bible and I don’t believe the fairy tale of secret “narrators” who changed the text of the Scriptures either. What really makes me wonder is why would you believe such a thing? What about this view of changes to all the copies of the original seems appealing to you? This story borders on the incredulous. Why have faith in a secret society of correctors of God’s word when the alternate view that uses a proper grammatical solution to the apparent “contradiction” wasn’t hard for me to find? How did you discard that reasonable solution in order to have faith in the secretive “narrators” who must have felt godlike enough to change the Scriptures? I just don’t get it.

And yes, I believe that it is a pathway to liberalism. For if you can believe that story, then who else tampered with the Scriptures? What else was added and what was taken out? If I believed this, I would believe that God had no Sovereignty at all to get it right in the first place. How should I trust a God that needs editors to correct the mistakes? Or a God who isn’t able to stop people from editing every single document so that none of the original remains. That is way beyond my ability to believe.

The new post of Mark’s writing is up at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/10/comp-view-of-1cor11-mark/
How about we all move over there with our comments as this one has already 313 comments?

Mark,
I don’t have time to comment right now as I am working on formatting your article. I sent you an email regarding how you want the byline to look. If you could get back to me soon so that I can get this new post out. Thanks!

Mark,
You said:

My issue lies in that if we always see ‘quotes’ as the very literal words someone spoke, whether Eve or Jesus we come to problems. Because no 2 gospel writers ‘quotes’ Jesus with the exact same words all the time. Do you see what i am saying? For example i believe Jesus spoke a sermon on the mount and both records of it do not contradict, yet both versions do not have the exact same ‘quoted’ words of Jesus.

Mark, there is a difference between a quote and saying things in your own words. A quote is:

1. to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc.
2. to repeat words from (a book, author, etc.).
3. to use a brief excerpt from: The composer quotes Beethoven’s Fifth in his latest work.
4. to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
5. to enclose (words) within quotation marks.

Notice that a “quote” is to “repeat”. We can tell the difference between a “quote” and a person’s only interpretation by the grammar that a person uses. Eve said:

Gen 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

Since God wouldn’t not have said “we may eat” this is not a quote. Saying things in your own words is saying things the way you understand it. Eve said “we” because she understood that the prohibition was for Adam and herself.

God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

This is a quote. It is not represented as Eve’s understanding but as the exact words of God. Eve says “God has said” and then she uses the words that God would have said. God doesn’t say “we” as if Eve is interpreting the command but “you” (plural). Quotes are meant to be accurate. We know that Eve got the quote right because she was not called on the carpet (or the grass) regarding her quote. And God did not go behind her thousands of years later to correct her mistake. God doesn’t need to do that because she was an intelligent woman and her mind wasn’t tainted by sin. She got it right the first time. Now if Adam’s first choice – the dog – had said it, then I would agree that he may have made a mistake on God’s quote because he is only a dog brain.

Dave said:

And because you are claiming that some words (or at least a word) in Gensis is not “actual” Cheryl has likened your methadology to liberal methadology (I do not think Cheryl has called you a liberal).

Thanks for understanding me, Dave. Yes, this is exactly what I was doing. I saw the methodology as akin to liberalism. Now I am wondering if I am wrong. Maybe it is more of a postmodern thought process where there is no concern for the literal but only the aura of the story. This allows everyone to have their own view of what is said because the literal words are not really important since they are only there to facilitate a story and a feeling not anything that we can put to the test literally by the context.

Dave,
You said:

I heard that young Adam wanted the puppy for a friend but God insisted on Eve. Adam was only young at the time. The puppy had a waggily tail.

I heard that story too, but I was afraid to say it. Glad you did! And by the way “waggily” isn’t a word unless you attach the wiggily to it i.e. wiggily-waggily.

Mark,
You said:

Which are the preserved exact words of Jesus since they are so different? Do you see what i am trying to say? I hope so. Maybe i’m just not explaining my self properly.

Mark, when you ask this question, it implies that we cannot know which are the exact words of Jesus. If we cannot know His “exact” words, then whose words are they that are quoted as Jesus’ words? If you don’t think that the accounts contradict each other, then why would you even consider that the words would not be Jesus’ exact words?