Glory, from God to Man to Woman to...Hair?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 янв 2023
- Content
- Setting/context
- Women, authority, glory
- What's hair got to do with it?
Become a CTC Partner for access to hours of NCST course videos: crosstocrown.org/partners/
Free resources: crosstocrown.org/books/
crosstocrown.org
newcovenantschooloftheology.org
@DougGoodin
@CrossToCrown 
Развлечения
I see the “glory” aspect of 1 Corinthians 11 this way: Man is to leave his head uncovered because he expresses the beauty and greatness of God, while woman covers her head because she expresses the greatness and beauty of man. In the church gathering we want to emphasize God’s glory, not man’s glory. Another aspect is this : the covering of woman’s head as a sign of authority and headship is a demonstration to principalities and powers in the invisible realm (both holy and rebellious angels) of God’s righteous government. The head covering is like a rebuke to demonic powers. We are “schooling” the invisible realm (1 Corinthians 11:10 and Ephesians 3:10)
I appreciate this perspective. The schooling would be appropriate in light of Eve’s being “schooled” by the serpent in the garden. I don’t think it’s conclusive, but it has merit. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree the context is the gathering of the church.
An interesting point from Ellicott's commentary on 1 Cor 11:10
"it has been maintained that the word exousia here means the sign of power, i.e., a veil, which is the symbol of the husband's power over the wife. The fatal objection to this view, however, is that exousia expresses our own power, and not the power exercised by another over us. It is a word frequently used by St. Paul in this sense. (See 1Corinthians 8:9; 1Corinthians 9:4-5; 1Corinthians 9:12; 1Corinthians 9:18.) Whatever interpretation, therefore, we put upon this passage, it must be consistent with this word being interpreted as meaning some "power" which the woman herself has, and not some power exercised over her by her husband."
I like this. It suggests that the woman chooses to submit to her husband, and that she has the authority not to do. As such it is a great sign for a husband, but it is also a liberty for a woman who finds herself with a dishonourable man and does not choose to submit.
Just a thought.
No it doesn’t. Try to fit that definition in Matt. 8:9.
@@CrossToCrownLive From Wiki..Roman soldiers and conscription (30Bc - 284AD) (don't assume I always trust wiki - i definitely don't!)
"During this period, the Republican system of citizen conscription was replaced by a standing professional army of mainly volunteers serving standard 20-year terms (plus five years as reservists), although many in the service of the Roman Empire would serve as many as 30 to 40 years on active duty, as established by the first Roman emperor, Augustus (sole ruler 30 BC-14 AD). Regular annual conscription of citizens was abandoned and only decreed in emergencies (e.g. during the Illyrian revolt of 6-9 AD)."
Matt 8:9 "For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it."
During this time (New Testament times) it would seem that the soldiers chose to be under the authority of their leaders. The authority or power was a choice of the one submitting to it, so I think it is the same also for a wife. In agreeing to be married, the wife is choosing to be under the husband's authority and to continue in it.
1 Peter 1:12 seems to connect to verse 10 in the way I have understood and exegeted it
The woman's submission to her husband is a reflection of Christ's submission to the Father. As marriage is a construct designed in the likeness of the Gospel, angels "desire to look into" the beauty of this construct, as they desire to look into the glories of salvation and the Gospel. thoughts?
Thanks Doug more confused now 😂😂
Hopefully at a much higher level.
In reference to whether this passage refers to anytime or only in the gathering, the previous passage about food cleanliness could be argued as speaking about anytime. Therefore that context could be continuing through the head-coverings discussion until 11:17-18 when Paul says “when you come together as a church”. Not necessarily arguing for this interpretation but just making the case.
I think I remember reading that the word translated angels can also be translated messengers along with speculation that it possibly wasn't referring to angels but rather to Roman spies within the church.
If I read it it would have probably been in Roman Widows Roman Wives.
yes, women are in the image of God.
There were also some wonderful theories at this time regarding fertility, semen and the length of men and women's hair put forward by Hypocrites. Maybe Paul was bringing this view to the table when he was talking about the hair of a woman being her glory as long hair supposed to represent better fertility.
1 Cor 10:6 (ESV) For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1 Cor 11:6 (NASB) For if a woman does not cover her head, have her also cut her hair off; however, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, have her cover her head.
Ellicott's commentary.....Let her also be shorn.--The force of this argument depends on the fact that a woman's head being uncovered would be regarded by others as implying the same shame as was indicated by a woman's hair being cut short (i.e., shorn), or altogether removed (i.e., shaven). It is as if the Apostle said--If a woman insists on her right to pray and speak in an assembly with uncovered head, let her carry out this principle to its logical result; let her insist on her right to have her hair cut short, so as to show her equality with man--and what would be thought of her then! No woman with a spark of shame in her would think of doing that.
Obviously Ellicott is taking the word "gyne" to mean woman rather than wife, but to take it as wife would cause a problem here. Daughters were presumably in the congregation. How is a daughter distinguished from a wife regarding being in the assembly? If it is such a shame to be "shorn", to attempt to have equality with men in the assembly, it must also apply to adult daughters, single women. and widows.
Bible says women to are to submit unto their own husband not all men around them.
It's very plainly says that your hair is the cover
Don't cut the glory that God gave you
You seem dissatisfied with my response to your question of why woman is the glory of man, stating "yes, I agree that is what the text says" (because she came from man) but then you query further "but what does it mean?" What do YOU mean? The answer is plainly revealed in the text, verse 8: "FOR a man does not originate from woman, but woman from man" in the SAME sense that man "is the image and glory of God (vs.7) (actually meaning Christ as man was created by Him per John 1:3) and is therefore His glory. In both cases, the REASON for glory is the SOURCE of his/her existence and therefore also the reason for authority/submission in Paul's rationale. Haven't you constantly preached that the text and not commentary, etc. is to be our guide? What other meaning are you looking for?
What does the word ‘glory’ mean?
@@CrossToCrownLive I see. There seems to be a cause and effect relationship or at least a correlation between the glory associated with a creation and the creating entity having authority over the created entity; for example, the potter's (creator's) "right over the clay" (authority) to do with as pleased. Of course, man didn't "create" woman, but out of him she was created so maybe that is sufficient for him to claim glory for her and authority over her. That was Paul's reasoning at least. That, plus verse 9 that woman was created for the sake of man gives reason to place him in authority over her. It doesn't seem more complicated than that to me, even if you don't agree with the rationale -- and many don't, I believe, because they seek for an egalitarian result, where both man and woman are fallible, making neither worthy of authority over the other.
I might be crazy but... Ever notice that Adam was made male and female, then woman was taken out of man. I know what the idea and understanding is but the text clearly shows something else. Adam was made in Gods image but Seth was in Adam's image Gen 5:1-2. YHWH the Word, YHWH the Spirit. The word came to do the will of the Father. The woman was a help meet for man. Woman subject to man, man to Christ, Christ to the Father.
You touched on that point later on... Genesis 5:1-2 really shows the singular and plural.
PDF of an interesting podcast that Heiser did on this topic…
nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Transcript-86-Head-Covering-1Corinthians11.pdf