What is the message of 1 Corinthians 11 wrt women?

[McCulloch]

[...] 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. [...] [Man] is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.[...]
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
1 Corinthians 11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

Question for debate: What is the message that the writer is trying to convey about the relation between men and women? Ensure that your answer takes into account textual, theological and cultural context.

[Word_Swordsman]

The whole of it has to do with why men ought not cover their heads when praying, but women should. This precedes your passage: 1 Cor. 11:4-7 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. [7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

Your selection is this: 1 Cor. 11:8-12
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god." KJV

The passage continued with this: 1 Cor. 11:13-16
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. [16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Paul was addressing a Jewish canon that was not in the Tanach that required a cap over a praying Jew's head. It was not part of Moses' law, but a tradition the Jews wanted to criticize Christians over. Paul also used the nature analogy to further explain his case, the first argument being over the issue of who God made first, man being made of dust by the hand of God, woman taken from Adam's side. God is a God of order and assigns responsibility where it ought to be held, in the man.

It was declared Christianity has no such requirement to cover one's head to pray, regardless of the insistence of Jews complaining about Gentile men not covering at prayer. Keep in mind the first Church was entirely of believing Jews who retained the traditions, alarmed when Gentiles began to come in to the Church not holding their traditions. Paul made a double argument against forcing that tradition.

[McCulloch]

The whole of it has to do with why men ought not cover their heads when praying, but women should.

OK, but then why should men not cover their heads when praying and women should. Paul answers that it is because men are religiously the head of women and that while men are the glory of God, women are the glory of men.

God is a God of order and assigns responsibility where it ought to be held, in the man.

This I agree is part of the true message of this passage of the Bible. Paul clearly teaches, here and elsewhere, that it is against his concept of God's principles to have women in positions of responsibility and authority over men. After all, men were created in God's image and God's glory, women were created to be men's helper, men's glory. Women are not to be trusted, in that it was a woman who was deceived by the serpent. Authentic Christianity seems to be misogynistic.

[Word_Swordsman]

The whole of it has to do with why men ought not cover their heads when praying, but women should.

OK, but then why should men not cover their heads when praying and women should. Paul answers that it is because men are religiously the head of women and that while men are the glory of God, women are the glory of men.

Yes, only I would debate whether that means women had to physically cover their hair like both men and women had to do according to their former Jewish traditions. Let's dive a little deeper. Paul's first reason for all this is stated in 1 Cor. 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." He took that deeper with synchronized reasons in 1 Tim. 2:12-14 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

From the beginning God intended a "pecking order" of authority, later demonstrated by dividing the tribes of Hebrews in a particular order around the wilderness tabernacle, and later instructing as to other levels of authority among men, the eldest in a tribe having tribal authority, etc. God made it clear also parents have authority over children. There is no lack of authorities or order with God.

Now, again 1 Cor. 11:7-10 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

The woman's covering was not specifically a physical veil. The veil was a symbol or sign of an authority over her, indicating a man has authority over her, first her father, later her husband. The real authority was "man", not herself, just as the man's authority over him was Christ who is head over the Church, through the man to the woman.

There was another issue pagans converting to Christ brought in. Pagan women sometimes shaved their heads in an act considered by Jews as insubordination to all authority, shamefully removing their natural covering. Paul addressed that too. With both Jews and Christians the idea of an uncovered woman at prayer was an affront to man as well as to attending ministering angles alway present in worship services. Angels have seen it all, thought to be witnesses before God of deeds of men, beings not to be affronted. The "safe" manner of prayer was then settled by women wearing a physical veil, especially if recently converted and having no natural hair. The men didn't want to see shaved female heads reminding converted pagan Gentiles of hedonistic females apparently fresh from a pagan temple.

The English word "power" there is from Greek "exousia", meaning "authority", in that case the authority of a sign of covering. I don't believe that in a modern culture a praying woman woud be required to have a physical veil if she meets the biblical demands of accepting authority of man over her.

None of the concept of "authority" means a man can regard his wife as his slave or any other designation allowing him to "lord it over" any woman. He is elsewhere commanded to love his wife as Christ loved His Church. I have a godly wife, but in my home I refuse to be "king of my castle", lording over my wife. I treat her like Jesus treated the Church, never condemning or abusing her. Jesus called His apostles His "friends", not servants, co-heirs of the new covenant, yet retained the final spiritual authority over all His disciples.

God is a God of order and assigns responsibility where it ought to be held, in the man.

This I agree is part of the true message of this passage of the Bible. Paul clearly teaches, here and elsewhere, that it is against his concept of God's principles to have women in positions of responsibility and authority over men. After all, men were created in God's image and God's glory, women were created to be men's helper, men's glory. Women are not to be trusted, in that it was a woman who was deceived by the serpent. Authentic Christianity seems to be misogynistic.

I don't see the concept of men hating women in the Bible. It isn't a matter of not trusting women. After all, there were many trusted godly women in the bible, Deborah coming to mind, and the women around Jesus who carried on a vital ministry to Him.

Some, and I emphasize "some" of the problems of allowing women to have authority over men centers around some well accepted attributes of women, they being in general thought of as "emotion-driven" creatures. You would have a lot of pain trying to show women in general as being able to shelve emotions in favor of logic, for instance. A man can control emotions to a point of great fault, refusing to become emotional for the sake of the woman who leans heavily on emotion. Any father of children should understand that disparity between the emotional drive of a mother towards her children in opposition to the reason/logic driven approach towards his family. One of my daughters came home from school crying because of a bully that slammed her to the floor. My wife cried with her, thinking to just pray for the bully. I didn't cry with them. I enrolled my daughter in a Taekwondo regimen instead, taking it with her. Soon she was able to make the mean girl at school other than a bully, the girl eventually becoming a friend who is now a speech therapist.

Nevertheless, a Christian man does well to simply accept God's instructions pertinent to a healthy relationship with a woman, which teaches him to treat all women higher than their actual estate.

[McCulloch]

From the beginning God intended a "pecking order" of authority, later demonstrated by dividing the tribes of Hebrews in a particular order around the wilderness tabernacle, and later instructing as to other levels of authority among men, the eldest in a tribe having tribal authority, etc. God made it clear also parents have authority over children. There is no lack of authorities or order with God.

And it is apparent to me that God intends men to have parent-like authority over women.

The woman's covering was not specifically a physical veil. The veil was a symbol or sign of an authority over her, indicating a man has authority over her, first her father, later her husband. The real authority was "man", not herself, just as the man's authority over him was Christ who is head over the Church, through the man to the woman.

Well said. We agree that the Biblical writers intended women to be subject to man's authority. I'm surprised that other believers are not stating otherwise.

None of the concept of "authority" means a man can regard his wife as his slave or any other designation allowing him to "lord it over" any woman. He is elsewhere commanded to love his wife as Christ loved His Church. I have a godly wife, but in my home I refuse to be "king of my castle", lording over my wife. I treat her like Jesus treated the Church, never condemning or abusing her. Jesus called His apostles His "friends", not servants, co-heirs of the new covenant, yet retained the final spiritual authority over all His disciples.

A thought echoed in Ephesians 5:33, "Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband." Read Ephesians 5:22-33 for context and insight.

Authentic Christianity seems to be misogynistic.

I don't see the concept of men hating women in the Bible. It isn't a matter of not trusting women.

[sarcasm]You're right. It is not a matter of not trusting women. [/sarcasm]
Paul: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
McCulloch: Why Paul? Don't you trust women?
Paul: For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
McCulloch: You must really love women. Encouraging men to protect them from their own innate propensity to being deceived. So, what role do you see women having?
Paul: But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
McCulloch: Thank you, I think I understand your point of view.

[Word_Swordsman]

From the beginning God intended a "pecking order" of authority, later demonstrated by dividing the tribes of Hebrews in a particular order around the wilderness tabernacle, and later instructing as to other levels of authority among men, the eldest in a tribe having tribal authority, etc. God made it clear also parents have authority over children. There is no lack of authorities or order with God.

And it is apparent to me that God intends men to have parent-like authority over women.

I don't see that relationship indicated anywhere in the New Testament. I see such a tiny difference between men and women in Christ that Paul could only go back to the Garden of Eden where instead of Adam heeding his wife's opinion about something God commanded. Adam would have done well to take the matter back to God for a new ruling over what Satan told Eve. He trusted Eve too much, more than God.

The woman's covering was not specifically a physical veil. The veil was a symbol or sign of an authority over her, indicating a man has authority over her, first her father, later her husband. The real authority was "man", not herself, just as the man's authority over him was Christ who is head over the Church, through the man to the woman.

Well said. We agree that the Biblical writers intended women to be subject to man's authority. I'm surprised that other believers are not stating otherwise.

It might be many other believers are just now realizing what the Bible actually teaches. Keep in mind I don't believe that authority isn't a matter of man exercising a dictatorship over the woman. She disqualified herself as a spokesperson for God through Eve. Us "Adams", however, must learn the lesson and always seek God's word over whatever the woman has to say. In Christ (the "last Adam", men have the privilege of knowing what can happen by letting women have spiritual authority over them. It's mostly a matter of how God says He will deal with men and women, choosing to require responsibility through the man. If the man fails to practice his "peculiar priesthood" over the family in a way pleasing to God he cannot blame the woman for spiritual failures. Modern Christian men have no less responsibility than Adam had, who first received God's law in the Garden. If the man loves his wife like Christ loved the Church, and loves himself, he will not fail like Adam did. I believe the heart of Christianity boils down to restoration of "Adam" (through Christian men) to the original perfect state of Adam, a sinless creature believing God.

None of the concept of "authority" means a man can regard his wife as his slave or any other designation allowing him to "lord it over" any woman. He is elsewhere commanded to love his wife as Christ loved His Church. I have a godly wife, but in my home I refuse to be "king of my castle", lording over my wife. I treat her like Jesus treated the Church, never condemning or abusing her. Jesus called His apostles His "friends", not servants, co-heirs of the new covenant, yet retained the final spiritual authority over all His disciples.

A thought echoed in Ephesians 5:33, "Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband." Read Ephesians 5:22-33 for context and insight.

Good observation! Notice the woman is not required to "love" her husband. She will grow into a true love if the husband gets into right relationship with God.

[Christianathlete]

Very good debate.
I'll chime in though I have very little time.
My view on the matter is God has a planned hierarchy that men should be the "leader" of the family. The man should provide for the family while the woman should support him. In the same way, a man must know that they are dependent upon each other. I could certainly be wrong though. I'm in the process of researching the rest of the Bible and haven't gotten to this point as of yet.

[Thought Criminal]

Very good debate.
I'll chime in though I have very little time.
My view on the matter is God has a planned hierarchy that men should be the "leader" of the family. The man should provide for the family while the woman should support him. In the same way, a man must know that they are dependent upon each other. I could certainly be wrong though. I'm in the process of researching the rest of the Bible and haven't gotten to this point as of yet.

What you call God's plan, we call sexism and recognize as immoral.

TC

[InTheFlesh]

Very good debate.
I'll chime in though I have very little time.
My view on the matter is God has a planned hierarchy that men should be the "leader" of the family. The man should provide for the family while the woman should support him. In the same way, a man must know that they are dependent upon each other. I could certainly be wrong though. I'm in the process of researching the rest of the Bible and haven't gotten to this point as of yet.

What you call God's plan, we call sexism and recognize as immoral.

TC

You touched on a common feeling.
It's not that athiests have proof against God
it's that they don't agree with him.
Even if God were true,
they would want no part with him.

[Thought Criminal]

What you call God's plan, we call sexism and recognize as immoral.

You touched on a common feeling.
It's not that athiests have proof against God
it's that they don't agree with him.
Even if God were true,
they would want no part with him.

Again, what you call God's plan, we call sexism and recognize as immoral. Plenty of theists are not sexists like you, so what they call God's plan, we recognize as egalitarian and moral.

In the end, there is no such thing as God's plan or even God, just what theists ascribe to God. Good people put good words in God's mouth, which is harmless, I guess. But bad ones put bad words in God's mouth, hiding their own immorality behind the shield of a fictional God.

God is defined as all-good, but the entity you worship is not all-good. Hence, you cannot be worshiping God. If there were an entity who was much like God, but not all-good, then why should we worship them? Simple fear? Would you worship the devil?

TC