Should Women have a Spiritual Head other than Jesus?

[Ernie]

Here's the reason why I think that the Berean translation is CORRECT: Paul would have known that what he was writing might be ambiguous, so I think that if he had meant 'husband' he would have included the possessive pronoun 'her'. I think that the context here also is speaking in symbolic terms, not specific ones, so that the sudden switch to the specific human relationship (husband) is a bit jarring. In other words, I don't think that the meaning is 'a man' either, in the sense that every woman needs to identify as being under some man or another.

So what do you think it means?

[silentreader]

Red flags everywhere. I automatically think of the instruction that the older women should teach the younger women. (Yes, it goes on to say "...to be subject to their husbands", so maybe then some would think this doesn't apply to single women?)

Opinion: I think that the safest "arrangement" would be for teaching and any necessary direction to come through the older 'sisters' of the congregation. I don't think that the 'submit to the elders' directive should be applied to one-on-one consultation (where the 'consultee' is a woman). If a leader has no wife, or if she is not able or willing to participate in consultations with other women, then he should not be doing it.

Good thoughts...

So which of the following do you think is accurate?

English Standard Version
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.

Berean Study Bible
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I agree with Boot (that the Greek word can be fairly translated as either 'husband' or 'man'), and with RZehr (that I think the Berean translation/interpretation is best - He actually just said that it fits his understanding of the text best). Here's the reason why I think that the Berean translation is CORRECT: Paul would have known that what he was writing might be ambiguous, so I think that if he had meant 'husband' he would have included the possessive pronoun 'her'. I think that the context here also is speaking in symbolic terms, not specific ones, so that the sudden switch to the specific human relationship (husband) is a bit jarring. In other words, I don't think that the meaning is 'a man' either, in the sense that every woman needs to identify as being under some man or another. (If I get tagged as a liberal for saying this, fine. I'm a big boy, and I can take it.)

I agree with what I think Neto is saying, that Paul is setting out the principle of God's order, not dealing with individuals in particular. In this sense, a single woman would not have to seek out an individual man to be her head, but would have Christ as her head, while still being within God's order in not usurping authority over a man in spiritual matters.

[Neto]

If you have access to Gordan Fee's commentary on I Cor, he presents an interesting perspective, in which the word translated as 'head' refers to something more like 'principal part', or maybe more properly, 'source, source of life'. Christ is the source of life of 'man' in that it was through him that the first man was created. Then, woman came from man. But the ultimate source is God, because it was through him that Christ became incarnate. There is more to this perspective than just this, but vs 11 especially alludes to the "order of creation". Fee states that the teaching here was not 'about' this order, but it is rather used as a support for what he is actually talking about. If you like, I'll scan this section of the commentary in here. (He also makes a case from the usage of the word 'head' in the LXX - that an authority structure is very rarely in view when this Greek word is used.) (I looked at my Banawa 1st draft translation for this text, and I did translate it as the reading that I now tend to reject. That's what peer review, and revisions are for.)

[RZehr]

Does submitting to a church as a whole (both men and women) fill this role of a spiritual head?

Why wouldn't it? Maybe I'm missing something, but anything more than that seems extrabiblical at best and misogynistic at worst.

What if the church is not unified in their advice? Does the woman pick the advice that seems the most helpful? Or should she submit to the leader's advice?

She does the same thing we all do in this situation, her being female doesn’t matter. What do you do?
Ultimately when we are faced with these things, don’t we often go with who we trust the most? Whether that is the church leader or not?

[Ernie]

FYI, I generally agree with the thought that a woman does not need particular men to give her spiritual direction. I just wanted to make sure I was looking at this from all angles before I take a position on this matter.

Now if a woman chooses to submit herself to certain people, whether men or women, that is her prerogative and they become her spiritual head whether she calls it that or not.

Anybody disagree with this?

[silentreader]

FYI, I generally agree with the thought that a woman does not need particular men to give her spiritual direction. I just wanted to make sure I was looking at this from all angles before I take a position on this matter.

Now if a woman chooses to submit herself to certain people, whether men or women, that is her prerogative and they become her spiritual head whether she calls it that or not.

Anybody disagree with this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it depends if she is submitting herself for spiritual reasons or not.

[Heirbyadoption]

So maybe I should ask the question this way,
Should women have a spiritual head (a human one) who is submitted to Jesus?

ernie, do you find this qualification to be supported by the Scriptures?

[Ernie]

So maybe I should ask the question this way,
Should women have a spiritual head (a human one) who is submitted to Jesus?

ernie, do you find this qualification to be supported by the Scriptures?

I personally do not come to this conclusion as I read the scriptures and observe life, but I can see how a person might make a case for this using various scriptures and if a church came to this conclusion, I would not consider them heretical.

[Chris]

Nope a wife submits her her husband AS the church submits to Christ.

The "headship" is about submission. Her spiritual authority is her husband. In the OT, a man can remove even the vows his wife or daughters of his home make before God on the day he hears of it if he disagrees.

It's that serious. That is why she wears a sign of the authority on her head, and a disgrace for a man to wear it.

Rebecca in Genesis submitted this authority to Isaac as soon as she recognized him.
24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. 66And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. 67And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

Spiritual authority before God exists with the Husband/Father of his home.

[Josh]

Spiritual authority before God exists with the Husband/Father of his home.

The obvious question is what spiritual authority, exactly, exists in the case of a Christian sister whose father is either deceased or is not at all in the church.

Should such a sister wear a veiling or not?