> I as an English speaker read it the way I read it

Here is a problem. The Greeks and Romans didn't think of "head" the way we think of "head". As students, it's up to us to figure out what the person who wrote it meant by it.

If we read some of the old Christmas carols, they say things like, "We should all be gay at Christmas." I know how we would all read that as an English speaker in 2018, but that would be wrong. If we want to understand the author properly, we have to do enough work to figure out what he or she meant by those words. We understand that. When Shakespeare talks about conversation, he's talking about a way of life, not a discussion. We all know that words change, and language evolves.

> Shouldn't the Holy Spirit have guided the translators to write something better so as not to confuse people?

Egyptians threw out the brains when they mummified, thinking the brains were worthless matter. We know differently. The ancient Greeks considered the intestines to be where our "mind" was. So what you're saying is that God should have been able to use one word that would span all cultures, all languages, at all times of history, that would never evolve with language or the times, in every place of the Bible? What makes more sense is that we need to realize there is more to what is written than there appears on the surface and to be good students.

> People literally read that wrong ALL THE TIME.

You're right, they do. People need to put more effort into studying the Bible before they jump to conclusions or reject it.

> which makes me wonder if we should put a giant disclaimer in front of this letter

That could be helpful. People just need to realize that understanding the Bible well takes some effort. That's why there are books and classes. It takes education, just like science, history, math, or law.

> Can I apply this same logic to the letter to the Romans about homosexuality?

You can apply the principle of "you need to study what he meant by it" to Romans, but not necessarily "don't worry about following any commands here." Paul lived in a specific Greco-Roman environment of homosexual practice. It helps us to understand that environment to understand what he meant by what he wrote.

> headship is not about hierarchy.

It doesn't say headship. It says "the head of the woman is man." I as an English speaker read it the way I read it, which is how most people will read it. Shouldn't the Holy Spirit have guided the translators to write something better so as not to confuse people? People literally read that wrong ALL THE TIME.

> Paul was talking to Timothy about a specific problem in the churches in Ephesians.

I'm starting to understand this, which makes me wonder if we should put a giant disclaimer in front of this letter that says "This is to the Ephesians. Don't worry about following any commands here if they seem wrong." Can I apply this same logic to the letter to the Romans about homosexuality?

> That is neither contradictory or an indicator that we are to take everything Paul says with a grain of salt.

If some of these things we're not to do, then, yeah, I'm taking it with a grain of salt. Women have been treated a certain way (IMO, a bad way) for centuries because of what Paul wrote.

> Yes, that is sexist as far as putting the man above the woman in the hierarchy.

Then you missed the point, because headship is not about hierarchy. The ancients perceived the head as part of the body, not in charge of it.

> It also proves that the Bible is either contradictory or we are to take everything Paul says with a grain of salt.

Oh, not at all. It's just that we need to understand the Bible properly. Paul was talking to Timothy about a specific problem in the churches in Ephesians. And so in that letter, in that context, in that case, the women are to keep silent. This is not true of all the churches, but of the churches where there was this specific problem. 1 Corinthians 11 proves that, because Paul (same author) clearly allows women to speak in the churches. Certainly you have to allow for context in your interpretation. In one congregation there is one kind of problem, and in another congregation a different one. So Paul gives different teachings to the two places. That is neither contradictory or an indicator that we are to take everything Paul says with a grain of salt.

> but it just makes you wonder what we are supposed to be pulling from Paul's letters as our own commands. If the Bible's God's Word that I'm supposed to live by, why did he have those councils include these letters aimed at another people of another time?

The Bible was written for us, but it was written to them. From specific commands that were not written to us, we can still mine them for worthy principles that might be applicable to our time.

Thanks for your response. Seems I need to learn Greek just to make sure I'm reading this all correctly.

> "The head of woman is man." Nothing sexist about this. The role of the man is to compassionately care for the woman.

Yes, that is sexist as far as putting the man above the woman in the hierarchy.

> which, by the way, proves that 1 Tim. 2.12 is cultural and local, not universal

It also proves that the Bible is either contradictory or we are to take everything Paul says with a grain of salt.

I am not too concerned with the head covering rules. You say many good things here to explain it, but it just makes you wonder what we are supposed to be pulling from Paul's letters as our own commands. If the Bible's God's Word that I'm supposed to live by, why did he have those councils include these letters aimed at another people of another time?

It's not sexist. I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

v. 3: "Head" is defined differently in just about every context, so we have to determine what Paul means by it here. "Head" as a person in authority as unknown in their culture. The head was the source, but in this case it would seem silly to say Christ was the source of every man. That's not a point that takes us anywhere or makes Paul's argument cogent. Christ is the one who provides for men, takes care of them, who enables them to grow into the fullness he designed for them. The issue is not control but responsibility. Paul makes the same point in Ephesians 5.25-29, which see.

"The head of woman is man." Nothing sexist about this. The role of the man is to compassionately care for the woman. The issue of headship is not control, but responsibility.

"The head of Christ is God." Theologically the Son is equal in deity to the Father. They are of the same essence. The Son is not a lesser being. This is the comparison, but with a tremendous difference. Paul's point is not hierarchy, status, or value, but only one of role and function. In Ephesians 5, headship is described in terms of nurture and care, not of power, superiority and authority.

v. 4: The Corinthians probably had questioned Paul as to how they should worship as Christians. Covering one's head was often a sign of humility (why Jews wear yarmulkes in synagogue). Why is this "dishonoring" in the church? Because Christ has redeemed us and raised us up with him, so covering the head fails to recognize His work.

v. 5: Paul is saying that despite the improved status Christ gives to all humankind through his death and resurrection, it doesn't shatter cultural ways. In those days a married woman would never go into public with her head uncovered. Uncovered hair was considered seductive, and only the hookers would do that. Paul wanted to protect the women in the church, despite their equality with men in Christ.

So when women prayed or prophesied in church (which, by the way, proves that 1 Tim. 2.12 is cultural and local, not universal), they were to cover their heads as all respectable women did. It prevented a lot of confusion and problems. Notice that the women were allowed to participate just like the men—an unheard of equality in their culture.

In Greek towns (Corinth was in Greece) women rarely appeared in public, but instead lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never left their homes except on occasion of festal processions, either as spectators or participants. Even after marriage they were largely confined to the women's areas. In the churches women were allowed to stop following these misogynist customs, but Paul asked them to cover their heads when the prophesied or prayed.

v. 6: A woman's hair was considered to be sexually enticing. There was to be no part of worship that was sexual (like the other temples in Corinth). The Christian church didn't want the reputation of being filled with lewd women.

v. 7: Men didn't have the same cultural limitations.

But what does it mean "man was the image and glory of God, but woman was the glory of man"? He seems to be referring to Genesis 1, where both man and woman are in the image of God as equals. But he's making a separation. Men don't cover their heads in worship because that's what honors God (as previously explained). Now, certainly Genesis 1 or 2 don't say that women were made in the image of man. This text affirms that she stands in such a relation to the man as does nothing else, and thus she is called the glory of man. And it is precisely the glory of man that should be veiled in the presence of God. In worship God alone must be glorified. Contrary to being misogynist, the text is actually saying how worthy and exalted woman is, possibly referred to as the crown and climax of all creation (God ended on the high note).

v. 8: Creation affirms gender and role distinctions between men and women. One way to uphold that distinction in worship (culturally and locally) is through head coverings. Obviously head coverings is not an issue in our time or locations, though gender distinctions still are.

v. 9: The Genesis record (both 1.26-31 and Genesis 2.19-25) is strong that male and female are equal partners, equal co-regents of earth, and equal in the image of God. But it is also true that the Genesis record mentions the man first (Gn. 2.20b) and the woman second (Gn. 2.22-23). The preposition of 1 Cor. 11.9 is διὰ, meaning "through," not "for." In Genesis 2.18, the word used for the woman is "helper," a word that is often used of God in the OT, so we know it's not a mark of inferiority or sexism. In Gn. 2.22 it says the woman was made "from" the man, and that's all Paul is referring to here. The issue in Genesis 2 is the equal kinship between the man and woman, not a hierarchy between them.

v. 10: "because of the angels." Very difficult to understand. Maybe he means that what counts is not culture or status, but what glorifies God.

"A sign of authority on her head": He is pleading with the women to maintain cultural decorum and not make the church look bad to the outside world. Christianity had a new view of women. They were not to be regarded as inferior. All the distinctions of culture were erased, and in the church they no longer counted. Paul will insist on equality in verse 11.

Sarah Ruden writes, "Paul’s rule aimed toward an outrageous equality. All Christian women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, respectability—or of privilege so great as to allow toying with traditional appearances. The most hurtful thing about bareheaded, gorgeously coiffed wives might not have been their frivolity but rather their thoughtless flaunting of styles that meant degradation to some of their sisters—as if a suburban matron attended an inner-city mission church in hip boots, a miniskirt, and a blond wig. Perhaps the new decree made independent women of uncertain status, or even slave women, honorary wives in this setting. If the women complied—and later church tradition suggests they did—you could have looked at a congregation and not necessarily been able to tell who was an honored wife and mother and who had been forced, or maybe was still being forced, to service 20-30 men a day. This had never happened in any public gathering before. This was Paul's ingenious combination of common sense and radical defiance for dealing with a very touchy set of issues. Polytheistic literature gives us a context of how disturbing, how distracting to men and stigmatizing to women, the lack of a veil could be. This context supports the idea that Paul was being protective rather than chauvinistic. The context also helps explain why the passage doesn't flow, why it sputters with emotion, gets incoherent, changes tactics, and ends almost with a snarl. There was an awful lot at stake."

Those who know Bible well- what do you make of this "woman made for man" verse? 1 Cor 11:3-10.

This passage seems very sexist to me and conveys that women are not equal to man (I understand we were made to have a different role but it's hard being a follower of God reading verses like these). "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is the same as having her head shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not cover his head, since he is in the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for women, but women for man."