Paul And The Head From 1 Corinthians 11

Nice little article it reminds me of the question “which came first the chicken or the egg”, now I see clearly the answer, it was God who was first, then the chicken then the egg, to follow the above in analogy.

Jesus is wonderful!
Your brother in Christ,
Martin Willemoes Hansen

Very good “pictology”. And you didn’t beat around but got right to it. > I call this the chronological listing of honorific orgins. 🙂

Hi Cheryl, I know this is a typo but it may help to correct it for new readers:

1 Corinthians 1:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

It is 1 Corin 11:11

I have just discovered your teaching and am overwheled by it! I am digging into scripture. Thank you for all your hard work and for your gracious and loving manner with those who disagree with you.

TL,

Great title! I like how you worded that!

Lin,

Thank you for your comments and encouragement! I welcome you here to learn and participate with us.

Cheryl

Gidday Cheryl

Can i pls ask you some qns and make a few observations for you to perhaps comment upon?

what do you make of the singular ‘a woman’ in verse 3 and the pluaral ‘every man’?

I think that paul’s statement in v 12 that EVERYTHING comes from God is crucial to the passage – especially if you hold to “head” as meaning ‘source’ or ‘origin’, v 12 is key. Can you clarify for me, are you actually claiming that the three ‘pairs’ of v 3 are referred back to in some way in v 12? or just that paul clariies the male-femle relationship one of interdependence with all originating from God?

what do you make of the phrase “in the Lord”?
i know some who use this phrase as a kind of ‘spiritual’ status in Christ, rather than applicable to ministry/ roles in the church body …just as some argue Gal 3:28 is ‘purely’ salvation ‘status’…

I also believe that verse 7, where Paul says ,man is the image and glory of God, and ,woman is the glory of man, is the key to unlocking the meaning of the passage…
Paul’s argument is about glory and shame. Not about authority and hierarchy.
(…but i am sure you will ‘unpack’ that for us shortly, right???!)

further regarding v 3: what is interesting to also note is that paul does not explicitly refer to the 3 ‘pairs’ again – only the ‘pair’ of man and woman is used. for example, if v 3 was the ‘basis’ for the entire passage, then surely Paul would have said that man is the glory of ‘Christ’ (not ‘God’) in v 7, to link back to v 3?

why does paul introduce a thought in verse 3 – that man is the head of a woman… then basically ‘reverse’ or revoke his argument in v.12?
What do you make of this? is this what he actually does in your opinnion?

what about Paul’s metaphorical use of ‘kephale’ (head) in Ephesians 1:10, 22; 4;15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10;19? can we assume that Paul is consistent or ‘repeating’ his use of ‘head’ in these other passages?

is paul always consistent / repetitive in his teaching to ‘different’ churches/ recipients? (i haven’t studied this at all, so just wondered what you think.)

i could ask a million more qns – but i am sure you have a full palte already!
i look forward to any comments you can make to my rambling thoughts.
your teaching is always thought provoking!
many thanks.

(-:
kerryn

Oh dear – I apologise to all for my many typos above! writing with kids on my lap can cause challenges! hopefully it’s vaguely cohesive and intelligible?
sorry and thanks for your patience.
K

Hi Kerryn,

Lots of questions and very good ones at that! These questions will make a great post so that all can read not just those who read the comment section. I will have to put a bookmark here, though, because I am at a family reunion and won’t be back home for a couple more days. Looks like 1 Corinthians 11 is going to blossom out to a few more posts that I had intended, but that is great! Keep the questions coming and watch for my answers shortly as I can carve out the time. Ah, the family calls right now so I am off to play games with the family.

Warmly,
Cheryl

To Cheryl,

Thank you for taking me a man under your wing, your one of my spiritual mothers in The Faith. When you speak it’s all of the spirit, very simple even a little child can understand. I pray that the Lord raises up more women who have the gift of teaching. An as a man I humble myself under your Godly Truthful Teaching of scripture,Happily! My spirit is happy that I found the right understand of these important scriptures thanks to yourself. The Lord is truly lending/guiding you greatly. I love how you were able to tie in what Paul said in Philippians 3:1 ! It all just flowed like living water, The Lord has used a woman to refresh my spirit! Let this be recorded for all of History! Amen!

Michael,

I am very encouraged that you were blessed by my teaching!

Help!  I am in over my ‘kephale’ on this one!  In reading D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, he says those who translate kephale as source are mistaken as that meaning only occurs in classical Greek and they should be looking at the Hellenistic (koine or common?) definition which is the lingo the N.T. was written in, which would not reveal ‘source’ as a definition for this time period but would yield ‘leader’ as a definition.  My comp spouse pointed this out to me in our ongoing debate so I need to hunt this one down.  Any experts out there on this one?  I posted this here in the headship section even though this is an older post because others like myself might look under ‘headship’ for this issue.

Athena was said to be born from the head/kephale of Zeus, this was a very common theme in art of the time.  The head of a river is also the source of the river as it flows downstream, the Greek would put a bust of a head to mark the river’s head.  So this idea was imbedded in their culture in various ways.

Don, thank you!  Here is the piece from the book in case I have mentioned anything incorrectly:  Let me know what else you ‘see’ in this that my untrained mind misses.  (From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies):  (pg. 37-38)

“It follows, then, that we should be a trifle suspicious when any piece of exegesis tries to establish the meaning of a word by appealing first of all to its usage in classical Greek rather than to its usage in Hellenistic Greek.  In an article in Christianity Today, for instance, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen argue that “head” in I Cor. 11:2-16 means “source” or “origin”, but their appeal is to the standard classical lexicon (LSJ-which does of course move forward to cover Hellenistic Greek lexicon (Bauer).  The latter lists no meaning of “source” or “origin” for kephale, head for the New Testament period.
     We may usefully continue with the previous example.  Not only do the Mickelsens appeal to LSJ, but they also fail to note the constraints that even LSJ imposes on the evidence.  The Mickelsens make much of the idea ‘head of a river’ as the river’s “source”; but in all such cases cited by LSJ, the word is plural, kephalai.  When the singular form kephale is applied to a river, it refers to a river’s mouth.  The only example listed by LSJ where kephale singular means “source” or “origin” is the document the Fragmenta Orphilcorum, from the fifth century B.C. or earlier, which is both textually uncertain and patient of more than one translation.  Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of kephale could be taken to mean “source”, all other factors being equal, in no case is that the required meaning; and in every instance the notion of “headship” implying authority fits equally well or better.  The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which kephale connotes “authority.”  The Mickelsens’ argument, and that of many others who have joined the same refrain, probably depends on an article by S. Bedale; but the fact remains that whatever the dependencies, the Mickelsens are attempting to appeal to an unknown or unlikely meaning.  Certainly there are sound exegetical reasons why such a meaning will not fit the context of I Cor. 11:2-16.”

Truthseeker, again:  I disagree with the statement that authority fits equally well or better.  Carson doesn’t justify this statement.

I’d like to see any comp from the context alone of 1 Co 11 pull out ‘authority over’ without making any additions to the text itself. This I’ve never seen. For me the safest way to go is with the context. What in the context proves that kephale in 1 Co 11, means, ‘authority over’? There is nothing. What supports a meaning like ‘source or orgin’? The context itself. The context will always provide support and the question is for me, which of the various meanings does it support?  🙂

Eat the context. It tastes good! 🙂 But not to all…

Suzanne McCarthy has some excellent material on kephale.  Suzanne is a Greek scholar and trained in several different languages.

Truthseeker,

pinklight is also right in that the final proof of the meaning of a word is the context itself.  The context is about origin or source and that God is the ultimate originator.  There is nothing in the context that has a meaning of authority over or “the boss of me”.

Hello,

You should look at the book by Dr. B. called “Beyond Sex Roles” and goes into this teaching, that the context of the Bible supports that Kephale means SOURCE!

Christ is the key to understanding and wisdom!

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Now there are three things that we can note from this verse:

A)1. Christ is the “head” of every man

B)2. The man is the “head” of a woman

C)3. God is the “head” of Christ

First off notice the order of it, if this was a chain of command then #3 should be listed first then # 1 then #2. So instead of ABC order we have CAB order! Did you see that!

Also Having a firm foundation on who Christ is! Jesus is God and what that means will help! so now lets break this down:

Christ is the “head” of every man
meaning source….why? because scripture says in Col 1:16
for by Him all things were created……all things were created by him,and for him.

the man is the “head” of the women
meaning source…why? because scripture says in Gen. Cha 2 that she came from adams side/rib. Notice: that in the creation account she is made from his side or rib, why? To show she can rightfully stand and take her place next to Adam as a Full equal! Also as Cheryl stated and the Bible text as well,that now all other men Male and Female have there birth through Woman! So in the end it all evens out.
The comps want to say that the order of creation forms a chain of command but they fail to apply their false teaching/misunderstanding all the way through because part of creation is that Woman bears the rest of mankind, we have our birth through our mother (a Woman)! So there all under there Mothers (A Woman) (LOL)! You see how one error leads to one after the other!
Men and Women and fully equal and the only one we are under is God, case closed!

God is the “head” of Christ
meaning Source, Why? First off, Jesus is God and He has no beginning or end! However the Incarnation (a point in time) did have a source or origin/starting point!

So the verse can be read like this: God is the head or source of Christ the Incarnation because the Christ Is God!

the comps run into error…Big ERROR because they been feed food poison to think Jesus is somehow lesser to the Father!

Col. 3:11
……but Christ is all,and in all.

1Cor.15:28
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Notice: Christ is all, and in all, and that God may be all in all!
Jesus is FULLY God and can be no less in anyway!

The Comps are taking the incarnation and reading into it and making it say something it doesn’t and using it to lesson Jesus somehow, which is very sad! That would be like taking the Creation account and reading into it and saying God was created, which is very sad!

My advise to you (everyone) is check these things out and test everything, test everything that I typed and you will start to see things for yourself. Just pray always and the helper the Holy Ghost will teach you!

Christ is the key to understanding and wisdom!

Colossians 2:3 (New King James Version)

3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

what do you make of the phrase “in the Lord”?
i know some who use this phrase as a kind of ’spiritual’ status in Christ, rather than applicable to ministry/ roles in the church body …just as some argue Gal 3:28 is ‘purely’ salvation ’status’…

….”in the Lord”?

Paul is speaking to “BELIEVERS” or if you claim to be a believer don’t live like a pagan or follow the ways of the pagans!

1 Corinthians 1:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

In other words as believers we don’t treat our women like the pagans do vice verse etc. We are all one/equals!

Cheryl sums it up good:

There is to be no competition between men and women because God has overridden any advantage that one has over the other. Men and women are interdependent (verse 11) because in the beginning God created man to be the source of the woman but since then woman has been the one to produce the man. However God is the ultimate source not any man or woman because all things originate through Him.

So you see there is no or shouldn’t be no battle of the sexes in the church, the battle of the sexes is pagan/of the world/from the fall/sin! This should not be in the Church/Among Believers! Paul is cleaning house and setting matters straight!

Carson has the wrong attitude on the lexicons.

First one needs to know what a lexicon IS.  It is simply a collection by the editor of various examples of usage of a word with their derived meaning.  Some think a dictionary DEFINES a meaning for a word, this is not correct, USAGE defines the meaning and a dictionary or lexicon follows along after usage.

A lexicon is a work of humans and can be improved as more info is gathered about usage.  Archeology is continually making advances and the latest info not in lexicons yet is there.  A lexicon is simply trying to form an organized base of knowledge based on what was (thought to be) known at the time it was edited.

The LSJ lexicon is about ALL ancient Greek, the Bauer lexicon is about NT Greek; so one should immediately see that Bauer is a subset of LSJ.  Furthermore, Bauer might think some meaning in LSJ is not a meaning in the NT and so not list it, but if it SHOULD BE the meaning, then Bauer can be misleading.  The point is that Bauer in trying to be helpful can actually be unhelpful.

However, many theologians use Bauer all the time and LSJ rarely.  Using Bauer MOST of the time is not a problem, but one needs to be willing to go to LSJ as needed.  However, when doing that one is playing in a bigger pond, which is more challenging.

Another aspect of the NT is that it was written in Koine or Common Greek.  It was NOT a special theological language, it was the language of the common people.  Some of the authors wrote in a very refined style, some not, but it was all intended to be able to be read by the literate.

Much to chew on here, and I thank you very, very much!  Just a reminder that I am egal, but am having this debate with my non-egal spouse.   I have checked all the McCarthy links, thank you Cheryl!…Don, when Carson claims that the LSJ has both common and classical Greek, and that Bauer only has common, thus if it isn’t found to be a meaning in Bauer it isn’t common, how does one know which of the meanings in LSJ are classical and which are common?  So, if Bauer has left out ‘source’ or ‘origin’ as common definitions for kephale (as Carson claims-I don’t have either lexicon so I can’t check this out), what you are suggesting is that Bauer’s lexicon is not exhuastive per common definitions?  When ‘source’ or ‘origin’ are listed in the LSJ, are they notated as to whether they are classical or common usage?
     I realize that context would seem to be clear about kephale meaning source or origin.  Yet, it remains like that elusive picture that is shown of a drawing that can either look like a young woman or an old witchy woman, depending on how one ‘sees’ it.  I think, similarly, that for a while, one’s mind (comps.) can just ‘not see’ any other context than the authority/leader one and this must just require prayer and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit within them to see clearly.  The comp I discuss these things with is very sincere, and spending hours reading the info I present as well as the opposing view’s info,  but just cannot get past the authority/leader concept of head.  It does look like there may be some new ‘lightbulb’ points expressed in the recent comments, though.   I thank ALL of you for what you have shared!  Any prayers for the outcome of this debate with my comp spouse are welcome, too!

Michael Terran,  your insight about ‘in the Lord’ is very interesting because one of the objections raised per the whole headship section has to do with whom Paul is speaking to or about in this section.  I maintain that when he speaks of Christ being the head of every man, the ‘every man’ here refers to all men-saved and unsaved.  Therefore, leadership can’t apply because non-believers don’t have Christ as their ‘leader/head’.   The comp view I am dealing with thinks that because Paul is addressing this letter to believers, that the ‘every man’ refers to all believing men.  Your point about the later mention of ‘in the Lord’ seems to refute the view that ‘all men’ refers to Christian and non-Christian.  Am I seeing this right?

Pinklight, I agree.  When I point out that headship as defined/described per Christ and the church with regard to husband and wife only seems to say that He loves her and gave himself up for her, and that leadership has to be read into this, it doesn’t seem to be clear to my comp.  I agree that leadership really does have to be ‘read into’ the passage.  This seems to be another case of trying to nail jello to the wall to make it clear that definition is being ‘read into the passage.’  I don’t know why other than it may simply testify of my own inadequacy as an explainer.  Yet, I know that in the final analysis, my job is to proclaim the truth as best as I can and only the Holy Spirit can ‘convict’.  I do pray for increased skill in proclaiming, though!

IMO, the FIRST thing to see about 1 Cor 11 is that the argument Paul is making does not make much sense to us today.  This means it is a “puzzling passage” and requires digging.  In other words, while doing 1st century context for a NT passage is ALWAYS a good thing, in this passage it will be required.

Another aspect is that 1 Cor would be read to the congregation by a literate person.  There were various factions in Corinth and each faction would be looking to see where Paul agreed with them or not.

Another point is that “every man” is describing a group, as such it MAY include females under the Greek masculine plural usage.  It is not clear when it is first mentioned whether it does or not.  In any case, how exactly is Christ the “head” of every human or perhaps male human?  As you point out, many people/males do not accept Christ as their authority.

Putting these last 2 ideas together one can see there would be some dramatic tension as the letter was being read.  Who is Paul agreeing with?

Another aspect is the article usage “ho aner” in 1 Cor 11:3.  The Greek article is used to make a noun definite, as in a specific person.  When a man has been identified previously, then it is that man.  In this case, I think it is “the man” is identified afterwards, in 1 Cor 11:8, namely Adam.

So there is a lot of ambiguity in 1 Cor 11:3 when considered by itself, but I think the pericope helps explain it.

Don,  that is fascinating that the ‘man’ may refer to a group that includes females!  When I checked scripture4all’s interlinear version of the verse, I noticed that the Greek above ‘man’ as in ‘Christ is the head of every man’ and the Greek above ‘man’ as in ‘the head of the woman is the man’ are different.  What is the difference?  I need to know Greek!

Also, one of the responses given to me regarding the problem with Christ being the head of every man, if we view ‘man’ here to mean all men-saved and unsaved, is that Christ could be their authority in one sense even if they don’t acknowledge it; in the same way that God is the Supreme authority over mankind, Satan, etc. even if unacknowledged as such.

Greek uses prefixes and suffixes to show the type of thing a word is, so andros is genitive noun and aner is nomitive, or in simpler English andros is a direct object in the 1st case and aner is a subject in the 2nd case.

Your point about the later mention of ‘in the Lord’ seems to refute the view that ‘all men’ refers to Christian and non-Christian.  Am I seeing this right?

so my words are not taken out of context (LOL).

when the verse says all men that includes all men…everyone! Believers and Nonbelievers..all humans!

the phrase “In the Lord”…. Paul is now turning and speaking to believers/the church because you have to be “in the Lord” to be a believer.
Paul by the Holy Spirit tells us first that Christ is the creator or source of man..all!
It seems to me that the spirit is giving us the reading some basic info on God and the Beginning! Then it goings into speaking to the Believer “In The Lord”…the new creation in Christ! Does this clear things up for you?

The comp view I am dealing with thinks that because Paul is addressing this letter to believers, that the ‘every man’ refers to all believing men.  Your point about the later mention of ‘in the Lord’ seems to refute the view that ‘all men’ refers to Christian and non-Christian.  Am I seeing this right?

So my words are not taken out of context (LOL) (Smile).

Paul under the Holy Spirit gives us some basic info to the reader about: God and the Beginning. That Christ is the Head or source of every man….which means Every Human…male and female, believer and nonbeliever etc. That Christ is the Creator.

Later he (paul) turns his focus to the Believers or The Church with the phrase “….In The Lord.” How do we know this? Simple, because you have to be in Christ or “in the Lord” to be a believer, right!

The comps read so much into the text that they can’t see clearly! I’ve been in Christ now for 6 years and I as a child can understand this one! I also have a Dr of divinity degree, its so important as we all know to keep the context and to whom paul is speaking to! First he gives the basics to all, believers and non-believers then like I said before, he changes his focus to the believer by saying “In The Lord” etc. It’s written to tie all this info together for the believer.

Remember, we are the New Creation In Christ or In The Lord, so there are things that believers can put into pratice where as the non-believe needs to know who Christ is and where they stand! The non-believe can’t live like the new creation until they themselfs become born-again! They can’t understand “In The Lord” until they are inthe Lord! I hope this helps.

On 1 Cor 11, my take is one needs to go thru the whole pericope and try to see what makes the most sense.  At the least no one is required to see head as authority in these verses.

Michael Terran and Don, those responses do help very much!  Thank you.  What would be the best reference/lexicon to use to show that kephale can mean source or origin in koine Greek?

kephale is on pdf p.801 of the bw LSJ file, at the link I gave that is awaiting moderation.  It starts at the bottom of the left col.

Don, thanks!  I have to go make dinner, now, but will look those up as soon as I have a minute this evening.

What would be the best reference/lexicon to use to show that kephale can mean source or origin in koine Greek?

As you know things are much easyer to search out in this day an age with computers. There is a computer that has every known writting of greek! You just type your word in and the meaning and the computer will pull up every document/writting where the word is used and also in context! I think I read this on CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) site!

I think in Dr B.’s book “Beyond sex roles” or was it Kevin Giles book “Jesus and the Father”. Or The book “Equal to Serve” at (CBE).Not sure. but these books are good to have in your personal library. All three books talk about 1 Cor. 11.