Kay

“So, on a number of levels, we fall into significant error when considering the English idioms related to “head of…”

Yes gengwall, much the way using ‘person’ when describing the members of the Godhead brings differing human connotations to different believers.

Ancient Greece was not a monolithic culture: customs varied fom city to city in Greece. Ovid (43 BC–AD 17), in the generation preceding Paul, provides an impressive testimony to the sad state of Roman morals in his book Ars Amatoria, with much discussion of female dress and hairstyles. His advice to ladies concerning hairstyles and wigs would be pointless if the ladies went out with their heads covered. If Ovid’s representation of society is at all accurate, it is hard to believe that there was any strict observance of headcovering customs in daily life. Likewise, the Apostle Paul’s remark about braided hair in 1 Timothy implies that in his experience women prided themselves on elaborate hairstyles, which is impossible with a headcovering.

“5. Kay, no i don’t think women should wear head coverings. This was a cultural practice to show the wifes submission to her husband.”
Kay, If you disagree with it being about husbands/wives, please give me your interpretation as to why it is men/women?

Mark,
I disagree because in the text Paul refers to the problem of ‘men’ in general covering their heads in worship – not only ‘husbands’ covering heads. And not all men are husbands every moment of their lives.

Here Paul never states that as why the women were wearing them during worship – again it would be pre-assumptive reading.
Women’s headcovering was practiced for a variety of reasons in Greece at that time. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.56), a first century Alexandrian Jew, describes the head-covering (epikranon) as “the symbol of modesty, regularly worn by women who are wholly innocent.”

Do you believe it is a sin for a woman to preach or teach in a ‘formal’ church?

“I am not trying to completely seperate the Trinity. But what the three persons ‘did’ at creation was not the same. Nor was their ‘role’ in salvation history the same. Hence why i believe we should not compound the members, but like you said, nor should we tear them apart. At the end of the day i am always going to throw my hands up in the air, and side with Augustine at the lack of ability in our terminology to express this biblical truth. I can only attempt to explain my view to the best of my ability.”

Mark,

To me, the problem is that it is the height of presumption for finite humans (not specifically you -any of us) to presume to be able to place ‘order’ in the Trinity (as in sub-ordination of the Son).

Why would their ‘doings’ or their ‘role’ necessitate an ordinated hierarchy?

Is it because we humans do that amongst ourselves, therefore we think it must be so in the Godhead?

I think our contemporary society’s basic understanding of the word ‘person’ is sometimes misleading in referring to the Trinity. The problem with today’s usual notion of personhood lies in its connotations of individualism, in the assumption that ultimately each person is an isolated being over against all others.

But being human, we lack the perfect ‘term’ for something so far above us – but because of that our ‘terms’ can begin to take on connotations for the Godhead that may not be so.

“That said, you have just gained about 200% more respect from me if you ride a bike?”

If it might help our discussion in any positive way, I just purchased a Honda VTX 1800c – it’s red with black flames (o.k., so I wasn’t too keen on the color scheme, but the price was right 😉 )

“If Paul was meaning generic men and women his argument really makes no sense. So i feel it best to go with husband/wife.”

Mark,
Of course, you feel it best to go with husband/wife – because you are presupposing ‘authority’ into the text before you begin and it’s the only way you can make the headcovering be about showing authority.

Wearing a headcovering was not only a sign of marriage but also respectability and of not being a slave.
So, why wouldn’t unmarried women be functionally equivalent to men since they are not under husband “authority”?

Mark,
Do you believe it is a sin for a woman to preach or teach in a ‘formal’ church?

“I have shown how the passage is in fact dealing with the concept of authority between a husband and a wife, so why are people saying I have failed to show how this passage is dealing with authority.”
Mark,
So, if you believe this, then can I safely assume that you believe that women require headcoverings today?
If not, why not?
According to you, husbands are still in ‘authority’ and the headcovering is directly linked.

I’ve often wondered how the whole idea of ‘created order being the designation of authority’ came about.
Obviously, there is no direct statement of it in Scripture or we wouldn’t be having this discussion – it can only be assumed and “implied” by readers.

In Judaism it was the males only
who received in their bodies the visible seal of the covenant with Abraham; it is a corollary of Paul’s circumcision-free gospel that any such religious privilege by males over females is abolished.

God created mankind in his own image, He created them male and female (Gen. 1:27).
It does not say, ‘he for God only and she for God in him’.

The creation narrative does not state male superiority. It must be implied. It is only in the fall narrative, not in the creation narratives, that “superiority” of the one sex
over the other is first mentioned. And here it is not an inherent superiority, but one that is exercised by force. God is never shown to command Adam to ‘rule over Eve.’

“Most women fight for control in the relationship but don’t really want it.”

Really? Which Bible verse tells us that?

“Why did Eve eat the fruit???
Why not Adam????”

Adam did eat the fruit. (see Genesis 3:6)

gengwall,
Thanks for your honesty. Self-centeredness and the quest for preeminence certainly isn’t gender specific.

“Why was Paul so much aganist women leading the congregation?”

Paul was not – although some people interpret what he wrote to imply that.

“I there a relation to the great obsession young and mature woman have for these new, seductive, evil, violent vampire novels? All this has to offer some relation to the whole incident in Eden.”

Really, why?

“What is the one thing that women to this day desire most? To be worshipped.”

And men don’t?

“Here in verse 11…”Also note that although the woman is under the authority of her husband, both are under the authority of God.”

Mark,

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman”

Their interdependence is stated here as a “two-street” – woman not independent of man *&* man not independent of woman.

“for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.” – No authority is given or stated here either.

“And all things are from God.”
& “both are under the authority of God.”

“Rather than re-affirming his previous argument Paul draws back to nature (physis) to conclude that nature even teaches that a woman is given long hair for her glory- hence why she should not have short hair as it is a disgrace. Parallel to this is the reverse for men. Long hair was seemingly a disgrace for men and dishonouring to God when a man prayed with long hair i.e. covering.”…A woman’s long hair (femininity) and a man’s non-long hair point to both femaleness and maleness, as well as a husband and a wife.”
Mark,
Or they could be pointing to something completely different. It is also worthy of note that Greek women seem to have cut off their hair in times of mourning. Plutarch, in the context of discussing mourning at funerals, says, “So in Greece, whenever any misfortune comes, the women cut off their hair and the men let it grow . . .” (Moralia, The Roman Questions 14). This would be similar to the Jewish custom of shaving the head as a symbol of grief or mourning (cf. Deut. 21:12-13; Is. 7:20; 15:2; 22:12; Jer. 16:6; Mic. 1:16; and Josephus Antiquities iv.8.23 ).
“etiquette as regards the veil becomes stricter the more one moves east. This rule is brought out clearly by the provisions of an old Assyrian code. Married women and widows must be veiled when in public places. On the other hand, the head of the harlot, here equated with the slave, must remain unveiled under threat of severe penalties. When a man wishes to make one of these his legitimate wife, a special act of veiling is demanded. (Kittel 1965, 3:562-563)
All this applies to the city dwellers in the east, since the desert nomads seem not to have veiled their women (Hurley 1973, 194, citing Burckhardt 1830, 233-234).

The significance of this difference of customs regarding women’s headdress in the ancient world is that it shows that there was no uniform practice, especially in Greece where women often appear without a head covering in religious rites. The evidence seems to indicate that in the first century among the Romans, both men and women covered their heads at worship, while among the Greeks, both men and women uncovered their heads when they worshiped.

F.F. Bruce’s: “Our application of the text should avoid treating the New Testament as a book of rules – We should not turn what were meant as guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time – It is an ironical paradox when Paul, who was so concerned to free his converts from bondage of law, is treated as a law-giver for later generations. The freedom of the Spirit, which can be safeguarded by one set of guiding lines in a particular situation, may call for a different procedure in a new situation.”
“Whatever in Paul’s teaching promotes true freedom is of universal and permanent validity; whatever seems to impose restrictions on true freedom has regard to local and temporary conditions.”

“Regarding single women and how this applied to them is indeed a valid argument. But we need to remember the ‘norm’ was to be married, and since the issue is again the ‘covering’ it is hard to reject Paul’s meaning as husband/wife. If Paul was meaning generic men and women his argument really makes no sense. So i feel it best to go with husband/wife.”
Mark,
I’m sure you realize as well, that it was and is an impossibility for all Christian women to be married all the time – a newly widowed woman doesn’t remarry at her husband’s last breath – even in times of cultural ‘norm.’

“Is that how you spell “waggily”?

I’m not sure, Dave. But it’s probably close enough for your purpose. 🙂

“I’m not disputing the validity of Genesis. Quite the opposite. I just don’t see that the ‘quotes’ have to be the exact words that people spoke. God has provided what he wants us to know.”

Mark,
Just curious, but wouldn’t it be just as easy for God, since He is God, to preserve the exact words?

gengwall,
I’d be glad if Mark would just answer your 3 questions at the end #87.

DAVE,
I’M SO GLAD YOU WEREN’T SHOUTING 🙂

“Finally, Perriman (1994: 620) maintains, “The question of authority is irrelevant to a discussion of the proper manner in which men and women should pray and prophesy; nor is it a valid deduction from the idea that man has authority over the woman that she should veil herself in worship, an activity directed not towards the man but towards God.”
Cheryl,
This is excellent. Our entire life is to be directed towards God, not towards man.

Alison,
I agree – good analysis. Any time I hear or read teaching on ‘authority’ or ‘leadership,’ I weigh whatever is put forth against Jesus teaching on the matter:
“Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Luke 22:24-26

Alison,
The Greek word for ‘leader’ is not in those verses.

gengwall,
I’m glad to see that Eggerich has addressed that on his blog…his book really didn’t lead one to think he viewed it that way.

Mark,
This is a quote from the Köstenberger article Cheryl linked.

“the author’s choice of the noun rather than the verb in the present passage in suggesting that a general concept is in view, “procreation,” i.e., the woman’s participation in the multiplication of the human race. Indeed, procreatio is the Latin translation of this term (cf., e.g., the Vulgate).
We may therefore conclude that 1 Tim 2:15 may best be rendered in the following way:
“She (i.e., the woman) escapes (or is preserved; gnomic future) [from Satan] by way of procreation (i.e., having a family).

”83 Moreover, in line with 1 Tim 5:14, one should view procreation as merely the
core of the woman’s responsibility that also entails, not merely the bearing, but also the raising of children, as well as managing the home (synecdoche;
cf. also Titus 2:4–5). The sense of the injunction in the present passage is thus that
women can expect to escape Satan
under the condition of adhering to their God-ordained role centering around the natural household.”
– Andreas Köstenberger

** “women can expect to escape Satan
under the condition of adhering to their God-ordained role” **

“In terms of my Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 perhaps you post my paper first, so people can see that superiority over was is a possible translation for kephale. Once peole can admit to that then perhaps we can get somewhere in relation to how it fits the context.”

“Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Luke 22

“As with any exegesis we need to be able to see what principles are binding and what are cultural- this is always going to be difficult.”

Mark,
I still must contend that what Jesus taught *are* and must be considered the highest binding principles.
“But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Luke 22:26)