- But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 7:3) - all verses are from the ESV
- Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ (John 8:54)
- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)
- When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28)
- so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:10-11)
- And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3:17)
- but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb. 1:2)
- For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:21-23)
- For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26)
- Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, (John 10:25)
- For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)
- but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (Heb 3:6)
- We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:4)
Sue
the head of a wife is her husband,
Now let's translate
for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.
the same way so as to match,
"for as woman was made from her husband, so the husband is now born of the wife.
It really isn't worth reading the Bible in translation if you want to create dogma out of it. How do we know it doesn't mean that God is the fountain and source of Christ, and Christ is the fountain and source of man, and man is the fountain and source of woman? Didn't Calvin say that God was the fountain and source of all things.
I realize that many people think that this passage says that man is the head of his wife, but I think it relates to Gen. 2 where woman is taken out of man, and man says, "oh, this is bone of my bond and flesh of my flesh," she is the same species as me, let's dance. But instead, well you know what happens ...
Ellen
Thanks for that possible translation.
The fact that the man is the head of the wife (not matter what translation you choose) is still the reason a wife is supposed to submit.
😉
Sue
The fact that the man is the head of the wife (not matter what translation you choose) is still the reason a wife is supposed to submit.
Wait a minute here. We are talking about the trinity here, not Christ and the church. Let's back up.
God is to Christ as man is to woman, and NOT as the husband is to the wife.
That is, there is no indication that the relationship in 1 Cor is about submission rather than about reflecting the nature of something.
Christ is of the same essence as God and woman is of the same essence as man. Let's do some basic theology and forget about how badly we want men to be in charge. For some single women that is simply never going to happen.
Some women will experience a reality without man in charge. Man in charge is not of the same order in life as the air we breathe. It is an accessory that we can live without.
The nature of God and Christ is of first order importance, the nature of man and woman is of first order importance. These are like the air we breathe.
"Man in charge" is not something that we need in order to live. There is ample precedent for a woman living a Christian life without a man at all.
Sue
What I am trying to say is that a woman could live in a country governed by a woman, in a convent lead by a woman, and have no relationship at all with a man. She could be a scholar, gardener, or doctor. She could be entirely under the leadership of women. This would not impact the spirituality of her life. It is not spiritually necessary to a woman to submit to a man. She could submit to her leader, a woman.
Therefore, submission to the male, is not the essence of woman. However, "God is the head of Christ", and "man is the head of woman" is about their essence or nature.
So this passage does not talk about the submission of woman to man, or the submission of Christ to God. This does not mean that Christ does not submit to God, but that this passage and the use of the term "head" says nothing about submission, but is about essence.
It is important to realize that women can function fully and in Christ without submission to the male. This is not our essence. For Aristotle this was the essence of woman and this teaching entered the church through pagan Greek thought.
The submission of woman to man, has to do with the fact that women cannot bear children without men. Christ and Paul do not teach that women must bear children. So they both release women from essential submission to the male, which is part of the curse.
Voluntary submission is to enter into the civic marriage relationship as it exists in our society. As I have said we should outlaw the vow of obedience as non-scriptural and husband and wife should submit to each other mutually as 1 Cor. 7 intsructs.
I am disappointed that people don't read what the Bible clearly says about these things.
Molly
It is important to realize that women can function fully and in Christ without submission to the male. This is not our essence. For Aristotle this was the essence of woman and this teaching entered the church through pagan Greek thought.
Wow. Sue, thank you. That was very insightful. If we are talking essence, then you are right on.
Ellen
Does woman need man? No.
Then again...does God need a Son?
(you are correct, I used the wrong hierarchy analogy.
As I have said we should outlaw the vow of obedience as non-scriptural and husband and wife should submit to each other mutually as 1 Cor. 7 intsructs.
I find the concept of that state intrusion into my religious beliefs so offensive it makes me ill. Seriously. As in - shaking with anger that a civil government would find it "okay" that they could outlaw my wish to vow to submit to my husband as the church submits to Christ.
How do we know it doesn’t mean that God is the fountain and source of Christ, and Christ is the fountain and source of man, and man is the fountain and source of woman? Didn’t Calvin say that God was the fountain and source of all things.
Here is the problem: man and woman are created beings; by forcing the "source" definition you may be forcing the definition of a created being upon the Son.
So they both release women from essential submission to the male, which is part of the curse.
so when the wife submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ, but the husband (specifically) is NEVER told to submit (specifically) in the same way...
Sue
I find the concept of that state intrusion into my religious beliefs so offensive it makes me ill. Seriously. As in - shaking with anger that a civil government would find it “okay” that they could outlaw my wish to vow to submit to my husband as the church submits to Christ.
That's what people used to say about the seatbelt law and the antismoking law, and many other laws. In fact, some may not be too fond of a law against marital rape, why have laws at all? The concept of a civil govt. at all can make people feel ill.
On the other hand, the woman who has been made to crawl on the ground, to grovel at her husbands feet, to beg for money to buy shoes for the children, we should not by any means have feelings for her because these are all handled by her husbands authority.
I am appalled at the "I'm all right" attitude and "may others suffer".
Here is the problem: man and woman are created beings; by forcing the “source” definition you may be forcing the definition of a created being upon the Son.
No more than calling Christ the Son makes him non eternal.
so when the wife submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ, but the husband (specifically) is NEVER told to submit (specifically) in the same way…
That's why it was considered better for women not to get married. Women only have to submit to men to be in relation to men. They don't have to submit to men in order to be in relation to God. Women just have to get over men altogether and be the protectors and providers for those already under their care. The men thing is a nice to have, not a spiritual duty.
You could be friends with a free spirited single woman who liked men, but just not as authorities, right? You wouldn't think of a woman as perverted from true feminity if she didn't want to be under male authority. Maybe she could run an orphanage without male help, or be a doctor or missionary or something kind, and loving and motherly, but just not under a man. She would still have her essential feminity, don't you think? Her nature as a woman would be intact.
So the under authority part is not essential to being a woman. It is only essential to coming into relation with man. Maybe, it is part of the reproductive process. Then it is not part of our eternal nature. It has something to do with our carnal nature.
Ellen
I am appalled at the “I’m all right” attitude and “may others suffer”.
If I had said that, you would have a point, but I didn't so that just makes this yet another false accusation that I grow very weary of.
You could be friends with a free spirited single woman who liked men, but just not as authorities, right? You wouldn’t think of a woman as perverted from true feminity if she didn’t want to be under male authority.
Actually, if it was authority in general that she didn't like, I wouldn't call it perverted as a woman, I'd call it perverted as a Christian.
No more than calling Christ the Son makes him non eternal.
Ah...but the Sonship is eternal...even Paula said that "eternal Sonship" is different than "eternal subordination".
It appears that there could be more than one way to get to Arianism.
Sue
But the problem is that our reproductive and carnal relation to man is spelled out in 1 Cor. 7 as being reciprocal and our spiritual relation is unrelated to men.
Therefore, I assume that a wife's submission to the husband is a submission of a Christian to a civil authority. If you live in a dictatorship submit, if you live in a democracy, you can run for office, male or female.
Sue
If I had said that, you would have a point
But what if you knew that doing away with the vow of obedience would save some women from abuse? What if you knew that this was a very common vehicle of abuse? It is like the gun law in Canada. But, we have bears and we need some guns. There is absolutely and utterly no redeeming use for the vow of obedience. It can enable and empower pure evil both to the one under the vow, and to the one who wields the power.
Actually, if it was authority in general that she didn’t like, I wouldn’t call it perverted as a woman, I’d call it perverted as a Christian.
That would be my point. Authority is not gendered. There is nothing that says that the husband has to have authority over the wife. A single woman may have authority over her family and a single man also. There is nothing that says that as a Christian, in general, the woman is more a Christian woman if she is under male authority.
A woman does not lose her femininity because she outlives her husband.
This is something that some people want, but it brings torture to others.
Ellen
But what if you knew that doing away with the vow of obedience would save some women from abuse?
What if I knew that abortion would keep children from being abused? What if I know that banning automobiles would prevent hit-and-run accidents?
You are making it about WHO is right (or wrong), not WHAT is is right (or wrong).
There is nothing that says that the husband has to have authority over the wife.
There is something that instructs a wife to be in submission to her husband as the church is in submission to Christ. There is nothing that says the husband submits to his wife in the same way.
But the problem is that our reproductive and carnal relation to man is spelled out in 1 Cor. 7 as being reciprocal and our spiritual relation is unrelated to men.
It also indicates a hierarchy within the Trinity (and the Trinity is what the post is about)
Sue
Oh, right, the trinity. But that is what I was saying originally, that the English Bibles mistranslate 1 Cor. 11. So, what is to be done? It is much better to keep husband ans wife out of it entirely when discussing the trinity.
The husband and wife thing crept into 1 Cor. 11 in 1952. Sometimes I wonder at the youthfulness of theology. People just put words in a pot and stir sometimes. Not you, but the translations that you depend on.
Ellen
As I pointed out - Craig Keeners agrees (and I tend to agree with him on this point)
I do not see the gender conversation as hinging on the Trinity topic.
Regardless of how the Godhead functions, wives are still instructed to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ - that makes it a different conversation.
It "feels" like a really good study of the Trinity is a timely thing to do during the season of Lent.
Sue
My only problem is that whenever I see Bible verses posted in English I have to ask what is going on. Where on earth did that translation of 1 Cor. 11:3 come from? This is a rhetorical question only, in this context.
However, to my mind, the obsession with female subordination has warped the mission of the church which must be to raise up the humble and bring down the powerful.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.
Christ comes, not to reinforce the authority of men, but to release the oppressed.
Ellen
Christ comes, not to reinforce the authority of men, but to release the
oppressed.
False dichotomy.
If authority is taught as a duty and stewardship, rather than as an honor and privilege, then there is no dichotomy.
The authority of men has the duty of releasing the oppressed.
Sue
Male authority would be male only voting, male only in administration, authority to the male. If there are two people for a task, no meritocracy, only patriarchy. That is oppression. And people are oppressed by authority that is not attributed properly and controlled. To take every set of two people and give authority to the male is just plain crackers. Who would walk on to a school playground and do that? Men are no better and no worse than women. But once one of them gets the idea that he has authority because he is male, the female had better run for her life.
Anyway, I really only wanted to comment on how the ideas people have about men and women alter Bible translation and verses referring to the trinity.
Ellen
Only as you would choose to describe it.