1 Corinthian 11:3 But I wish you to
know that of every person the head the Christ is and the head of woman is the
man and the head of Christ is God[1] 4:
Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head 5:
But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors 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 shaved let her be covered[2] 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 man[3] 8:
For man is not from woman but woman from the man 9: Neither was the man
created on account of the woman but the woman on account of the man[4] 10:
For this cause ought women to possess G2192 translated as possessed in
Acts 8:7 liberty G1849 translated as liberty in 1 Corinthians 8:9 over their [own] persons on account of the
angels[5] 11:
Further neither is man apart from woman neither woman apart from man in the
Lord 12: For as the woman out of the man so also the man because of the
woman and all things from Ton Theon (The God)[6] 13:
Judge for yourselves It is [autos esti] fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled
14: Nor does nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is
a shame to him[7]
15: and if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her For hair is given
her anti-peribolaion [instead[8] of
a veil[9]] 16:
and if any seem to be contentious we have no such custom [of veiling] neither
the churches of God
[1] Verses 11-12, are the interpreters of 1
Corinthians 3:11. They confirm that the chronological interpretation of verse
three is the correct one (as opposed to the hierarchal interpretation). Despite
the clear explanation in verses 11 & 12, verse three remains a hotbed of
controversy, largely because it is considered an ironclad, bedrock, verse
subjecting women to men within the complementarian/male-headship movement. 1
Corinthians 1:11-12, however, refutes traditional-role-religionist and
complementarian male headship interpretations, clearly defining the verse as
being prepositional (chronological), rather than hierarchal. 1 Corinthians 11:3
is a divine flow-chart, showing source and chronological order of creation and
appearance. It reveals the prepositional (chronological flow of the)
relationship between:
·
1.) The Godhead and every person
(Elohiym—the Godhead—created the
heavens and the earth. He is creator/head/source
of all people not just males). In scripture usage, the Greek word, aner, cannot claim male exclusivity. In
numerous instances, it is used of crowds/groups composed of both women and men. There is no
hermeneutical reason it cannot be translated generically, as “people” or
“person,” when context calls for it.
·
2.) The direct creation, by God, of the
first man, who then
became the head of …
·
3.) …the first woman
[only], as he was the source from which God made her. The
first woman was just as much a direct creation of God as the man. The man
himself had nothing to do with the creation of woman. He was the source only in
the fact that God took one of his sides and used it to fashion the woman. The
fact that God fashioned the woman from an entire side of the man, in no way
diminished either him or her. He did not then become only half a person, nor
was she created a sub-[hu]man—doomed to subjugation to males for all eternity.
Nor can it be found in scripture where the first man was designated as superior
over the first woman based on chronology (or where all men are given command over all
women based on order of appearance. The first man and the first woman were both direct creations of God (God was
the ultimate source of existence and life for both of them). And both
were commanded to dominate the earth equally.
Even role-religionists admit that no hint of hierarchy exists in the creation
account of Genesis chapter one. Neither does it exist in the Hebrew language
Genesis chapter two was translated from—except through gender biased translator
supplements.
·
4.) Messiah (who was later born of a woman)
·
5.) The Godhead, from which came Messiah. To interpret
this verse any other way, is to reduce God—as Messiah is God. Jesus claimed Jehovahistic identity. On one occasion, the Jews sought to stone him
when he said he was the great, I AM.
The chronological flow of 1 Corinthians 11:3, is in
absolute agreement with the entire volume of scripture concerning the creation,
making, and appearance of the first man, the first woman, and the birth of
Messiah. The verse begins with the Godhead (for all the fullness of the Godhead
dwells in Christ) and ends with the Godhead. It was Elohiym (the Godhead) who in the beginning created the heavens and
the earth. And Jesus made the exclusive claim to be Elohiym (YHWH) when he said, “If you do believe that I AM (EGO EMI),
you will die in your sins.” The apostle wrote that the entirety of the Godhead
resides in Jesus in physical form. Jesus the Christ does not need a God. Jesus is God.
[2] If we were to take this verse out of
its ancient context, and apply it to modern-day Christianity, then Christian
women would be required to wear veils [hijabs] and burqa’s. No scholar suggests
this should be the case. Paul was obviously responding to letters he received
that included questions about these things.
[3] Is Paul saying that men are made more in the image of God than are women?
Of course not! There is no scriptural basis for such an idea. Nevertheless,
many buy in to this theory. Nor are women made differently in the image of God than are men. There is only one Image of God. And God’s entire human
creation is made in that same image. The interpretation applied to this verse
by role-religionists, is at odds with the clear statement in Genesis chapter
one, that God created audawm—not just
the man (iysh)—in his image. Audawm is the phonetic pronunciation of
the Hebrew word 'âdâm—the name Elohiym
bestowed on both his male and female creations Genesis 5:2.
1 Corinthians 11:7, according to context, cannot be about the superiority of
males over females concerning the Image of God, but rather a continuation of his
discourse about the source and chronology of humans.
[4] Again, referencing chronology.
[5] Within many congregations, the myth
persists that women should be veiled to hide their beauty from fallen angels.
This harks back to Genesis chapter six where the sons of God (fallen angels)
were attracted to the daughters of men and took them for wives, producing a
genetically mutated race of Nephilim (half human and half angel). The interpretation holds no water for a
couple of reasons: 1.) If that were the case, women would have to be completely
veiled 100% of the time—not just in public or in church—as the walls of a
private home would pose no obstacle to an angel who wanted to look upon an
unveiled woman 2.) Neither veiling nor human males could hide or protect women
from spirit beings as mighty as angels. So, the phrase, “because of the
angels,” must refer to something else.
[6] Verses 11-12 confirm the chronological,
as opposed to hierarchal, nature of verse three. It is also a clear biblical
statement of essential and functional equality of women and men.
[7] “Verse 14 purports to be a question asking, "Doth not
nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame?" Now
every candid person must answer this question with a "No." It is not
nature, but the barber who keeps man’s hair short. In China, millions of men
wear long hair, and nature has never taught them that it is a shame.
Furthermore, the last time the Corinthians saw the apostle Paul before he wrote
this Epistle, he himself had long hair (Acts 18:18); and to the Jew, accustomed
to religious vows (Numbers 6:1-21), long hair, religiously speaking, was more
of a "glory" than a "shame." Additionally to this, the
native Corinthian's would have thought this a strange question to submit to
them, for they would boast that they were descendants of the “long-haired Achaeans,"
celebrated as such on almost every page of that most famous and most ancient
Greek poem, Homer's Iliad. Therefore we do not believe that St Paul asked a
question, here. His simple statement of fact, "Nor doth nature teach
you," has been changed into a question by the uninspired men who put in
the punctuation marks centuries later than St. Paul wrote these words. As a
question, this is a Tremendous Misfit. It contradicts a fact of nature; it
makes St. Paul inconsistent in his practice with his teaching; it is an
entirely unsuitable question to submit to Achaeans. –God’s Word to Women, 1908,
Katherine Bushnell
[8] G473 anti can mean: in support of or opposed to; opposite to or instead of…We see that applied to the
commonly held definition of anti-Christ
(opposed to or instead of Christ).
[9] G4018 paribolaion can even refer to a full-body covering such as a burqa,
which would not have been uncommon among even the Jews in Paul’s day.
Did you find this article helpful? Link to this post
or share with your connections on social media
Questions and comments are welcome
For a more complete study on this subject, read, "A Study of Male Headship": https://www.amazon.com/Study-Male-Headship-Corinthians-Ministry/dp/1505921465
No comments:
Post a Comment