1 Cor 11:10 Exegetically understanding "exousia/authority on the head". (It is neither man's nor woman's authority)

Yes, although I would not put it that way—but much stronger. What is necessary after reading Calvin on the text is to recognize that, starting with the Reformer John Calvin, it is an overstatement and misleading to characterize “the Reformers” as holding that “many” of them argued that the Church can manage quite well without women covering.

What can be said is that Calvin and others were given to noting the theme of the significant part local culture and civil order were bound up in the particular expression of the fundamental creation principle and apostolic command. What then must immediately be said is that Calvin (and other Reformers, following him) argued also and even more intensely that it is proper and necessary to oppose what our present condition of dress and carriage and action is, including within conservative Protestant churches, that “there [today remains] such disorder… that the men [have] exchanged (places) with the women, which [is] intolerable.”

So, in such a day, if the practice of women covering their heads was used to sign the submissiveness of their sexuality until a few decades ago, it might well be good to restore that practice. The reformers would, I’m guessing, say this was not only good to suggest, but high time it was suggested. They would be horrified at the everlasting androgyny permeating all things, places, and practices today, particularly in the church’s pulpit and congregational worship.

Concerning the Fatherhood of God, authority of God, fear of God… being the center of attack in women coming to rule men almost universally today, I’m going to leave that now, and maybe more on it another day. Thanks, and love,

PS: It’s good to have here Calvin’s comments on 1Corinthians 11:4:

**4.**Every man praying Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station — if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is an emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.

Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14:3,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

So it is our job to ascertain and preach this text to our listeners in the throes of our sexually anarchical day in such a way as to cause our brothers and sisters in Christ to regain their saltiness and take their light out of hiding.

The phrasing is provocative, but it is a true statement. My point was that head covering has long been only weakly tied to the main message of Christianity (the gospel) and when the culture turned against the symbol and the meaning, it is difficult to convince churches to push back against that culture when churchmen today share the views of even Reformers as prominent as Zwingli, Calvin and Beza and call the symbol cultural. Yes, these men strongly taught a theology of the sexes, but undermined the sign.

I appreciate that the authority of God the Father can be seen in head covering, but I believe there is far more than that involved in the tradition. There are numerous connections that should be brought out to more firmly tie it to the Church and doctrine. I think these Reformers and those who taught the same cultural view were not as thorough in their exegesis on this passage because they did not experience the full weight of sexual rebellion in their day.

No.

May the Lord bless you,

Tangent from this topic.

I’ve been giving serious consideration to leaving the ESV behind and moving toward either NASB95 or LSB.

@tbbayly and @adionne have successfully radicalized me such that every time I run into a gender-neutered translation of adam or anthropos, I have to restrain myself from chucking my Bible across the room. The most recent was Proverbs 3:13 in my daily Bible reading…

As we’ve discussed in other threads though, I don’t find NASB95 and LSB to be without their own faults. One such example I was studying today is 1 Corinthians 11:3. Check this out:

ESV: 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.

NASB77/95, LSB: 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.

The NASB’s decision to insert the indefinite article in front of woman is, I believe, extremely telling.

The Greek phrase in question is κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ. Gunaikos is anarthrous. This is an example where the translator is forced to make some kind of interpretive decision. Is Paul making a statement about ontology, or isn’t he?

Apparently, the translators capitalized on the lack of article as license to go ahead and read an indefinite article into the statement, thus limiting the application of Paul’s statement to a particular woman, and her relationship, it follows, to a particular man. Ontology is gently swept off to the side.

Both the ESV and NASB dismiss ontology. NASB is just more subtle. The ESV accomplishes it by limiting gunaikos and aner to explicitly mean wife and husband, which is a very specific interpretive decision. Meanwhile, NASB carefully inserts the indefinite article to let the air out the back door.

Meanwhile, KJV, NKJV, and (gasp) even the NIV and NLT get it right.

KJV: the head of the woman is the man
NKJV: the head of woman is man
NIV: the head of the woman is man
NLT: the head of woman is man

So I got to thinking. I wonder how our French and German-speaking Bibles have handled this text through history? Surely if the indefinite article belongs, or Paul’s meaning is wife and not woman, surely it isn’t just the Americans who have figured that out by now. So I asked my buddy ChatGPT to help me.

Luther’s Bible: der Mann aber ist des Weibes Haupt
“The man but is the woman’s head”

Lutherbibel 2017, Elberfelder Bible: das Haupt der Frau ist der Mann
“The head of the woman is the man”

Olivétan Bible, Louis Segond Bible: le chef de la femme est l’homme
“The head of the woman is the man”

From what I understand, Weibes, Frau (German) and femme (French) are words which all have the range of woman or wife, just as gune does in Greek.

French and German also have indefinite and possessive articles which could be employed, but the translators all use the definite article.

All my math is telling me that it’s the so-called “formal equivalency” modern English Bibles currently hold the corner market on being ashamed of the fact that 1 Cor. 11 has to do with ontology.

1 Like

Well thought and said, dear brother. Thank you.

In the planting of our church plant up here, I have been extensively trying to get the people to understand the simple fact that because of our hatred of Fatherhood we hate every symbol of Authority.

So something ive taught and seen is that most of our women have come to understand need of honoring Authority and Fatherhood. Even some in our campus ministry have grown to understand this.

I can’t remember which post said it, but I agree that both teaching it from the beginning and not being afraid to preach it in already established churches is the faithful way forward.