skynes
05-14-2007, 11:53 AM
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


Disclaimer: Please do not get into the whole men's authority stuff here. That is a different thread, one I'm happy to talk at length on if required.

Well known passage amongst believers and non-believers, ripped and attacked in many different ways.

Allow me to go through some of the ways this passage is seen:

1. Woman hating Paul: A common anti-Christian pro-feminist opinion. Paul hated women and wanted to degrade them wherever possible.

2. Added in manuscript: It was added into the manuscript at a later date, Paul didn't write it.

3. Women must wear hats in church.

4. Cultural application only, no relevance today.

I disagree with all the above. I always have. Though I've never understood what this passage was about, I always knew common applications were off-base.

On Sundays I have a Bible study in a friends house, it consists of him and his wife, Laura and I. Just the four of us studying God's word and praying for each other.

In our reading through Cornithians we've hit this lovely passage. Quite simply we were all a bit confused.

It was Laura who. beleive it or not, stumbled onto something incredible.

She said: Why does it jump around like that? I mean, one minute it's talking about the head of women being man and the head of man being Christ, the next it's talking of hair. Should it not be the same thing?

I considered this...

Dishonour to your head. What if it isn't dishonouring your physical head? But the person in authority over you? the woman dishonours her husband, the husband dishonours Christ. What's it mean then? What about:

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her husband naked dishonors her husband.

mmm... no. As amusing as it is.

So I asked Andy for his concordance. I went and looked up 'head' and it's greek word. Hoping it might shed some light on it. It said the word means head... Great help. But just before that it mentions something about the word being the root for 'seizing', or seizing being the root for head. One or the other.

This had me thinking... Seizing. Seizing headship?

It clearly says in scripture that the husband is the spiritual head of the family and is directly responsible for their welfare. That he is to love his wife as Christ loves the church i.e. Be willing to die for her.

So this followed through the crazy thought patterns that I have, won't bother trying to formulate them into words.

What I concluded was that this passage has nothing to do with hair or correct clothing in church. It's to do with headship, responsibility and authority.

this also brings verse 10 into light:

For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels

What do the angels have to do with authority? Well, what did a bunch of angels led by Satan do? They tried to take over God's authority. The angels were subservient to God, they tried to take His place.

Culturally I don't know what the hats or head coverings are about. I'll only reference what it says here. A modern application however, that I can do.

Paul was telling the women not to overthrow mens authority. By women covering their heads, they were showing subservience. As a husband is directly responsible (Biblically anyway) for his wife's well-being, any failing on her part is ALSO the husbands responsibility. Thus dishonouring him.

To the men Paul was telling them not to step down from their position, that it dishonours Christ, as Christ put them in that position initially. What I mean is that men are to live up to the responsibility given to them and not shrug it off.

--

What we see today is exactly what Paul was talking AGAINST.

Men do NOT live up to their responsibility, the Bible says that teaching kids about God and disciplining them is the father's job. Today it's mostly mothers doing that.

I'll state here, that while I agree that women are equals, deserving the same rights, including voting. I believe the feminist movement has gone too far now. It's no longer about equality, but female superiority.

We have churches who take this so literally, as to never consider what it is to mean, but force women to wear hats and refuse those who won't wear hats... I think that's rediculous. 1 Samuel 16:7 says "...for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. "

It doesn't say "for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart, except when it comes to women wearing hats."


Any hate mail you have, direct it to Laura :) for she was my inspiration in all this.

weebird20
05-14-2007, 01:16 PM
Woohoo for me! i'm inspiring ;D

I went to a Brethren church for the first 16 years of my life...wore a hat to church always and it never bothered me...then i began attending a Baptist church with my sister and didn't have to wear a hat...thought wow i don't have to wear one...cool...(not sure why i thought this was so good)...i realised i only wore a hat before because in the Brethren church we had to...it was expected of the women to wear a hat...then i saw this passage...but to me it didn't make sense...i couldn't understand why it would be talking about hats being a head covering when later in the passage it says a womans hair is given to her as a covering...it kinda confused me...but i just thought to leave it as it didn't seem like something that was vitally important to understand...some churches think that woman should wear hats...some don't...so what...

But in our Bible study...like Scott said...we were looking at this passage....studying it and trying to come to an understanding of what Paul was saying...i told Scott my thoughts...i was confused as to why Paul would jump around so much in the passage...going from authority to covering your head with a hat...maybe what Paul was saying about covering your head was related...it had to be otherwise he was just not making any sense...so Scott did his whole...research thing...like he does and came up with basically what he said in the above post...and to me it makes a lot of sense...way more than any of the interpretations i have heard before on this passage...

Another thing i wanted to add was that in Paul's time...wasn't there cultures who did put women over men...as in they had the important roles and more authority...kinda like a priestess...not sure...but its what came to my mind when reading the passage with all this in mind...so this would give Paul reason to have mentioned this...i dunno...

Any hate mail you have, direct it to Laura for she was my inspiration in all this.
uh...since your practically my husband...shouldn't it then be your responsiblity Scott? ;)

skynes
05-14-2007, 01:21 PM
uh...since your practically my husband...shouldn't it then be your responsiblity Scott?

Rats. You're right. I'm responsible. So much for my easy escape.

Tromos
05-14-2007, 04:27 PM
"Practically"?

Be of good cheer, Scottie. Since "practically" doesn't cut it for the fun stuff, it doesn't work for the baggage either ;)

DarkestRose
05-14-2007, 04:58 PM
So this is about women in leadership? Or women leading over men?

skynes
05-15-2007, 03:38 AM
So this is about women in leadership? Or women leading over men?

Proper roles within the church.

weebird20
05-16-2007, 05:05 AM
"Practically"?

Be of good cheer, Scottie. Since "practically" doesn't cut it for the fun stuff, it doesn't work for the baggage either ;)
Well...in the waiting for marriage thread (http://www.panheads.org/boards/showthread.php?t=6142) it would seem that marriage is a covenant (promise) to one another to be husband and wife...so then you could say...going by that...that Scott and I are married...all yours Scott...heehee ;)

Proper roles within the church.
Would it also apply outside the church...within the household...man's role in the home...woman's role..their responsibilities?

bob
05-16-2007, 06:02 AM
Interesting, what you said would definitely clarify the verse a bit.

frymeskillet
05-21-2007, 10:31 PM
I always thought of that passage to mean hair....which is why my personal belief is to have uncut hair. (We all aren't perfect however, and mine definitely has been cut before, anyways, not the issue at hand) But this is interesting, it really does shed a new light on it what it might mean instead.

As for roles in the church, I will have no problem standing under my husband. If marriage is what it's supposed to be, the husband would be considerate and not irrational like so many woman like to think of their husbands, then no one would object to this biblical law.
I for one, am all about female equality and I think it is important to have an equal marriage, but there is a line. Feminists have gone way too far, as you said Scott, and I don't agree with their issues now. I just wish people would understand that the bible isn't saying the woman has no power, but it is saying that the woman is simply made for the man and is under his authority, as he is with Christ.
Women can have plenty of spiritual power, the first gospel was carried by a woman if I am not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong), but she is just not supposed to hold an authoritative position, in my opinion.

All of this took me a while to come to peace with, for I can't said being seen as inferior, but God finally helped me to understand exactly what it is that I am here for and what my role is. That right there makes all the difference in understanding.

skynes
05-22-2007, 03:14 AM
I've found that women and girls who don't understand the guys authority are the ones who reject it the most.

I will eventually be heavily looking into it from a scriptural standpoint (as I am getting married, I need to know it).

In short it's:


Husband is responsible for the spiritual, mental and physical well-being of his family.
Husband is responsible for the actions of his family and it is he who is to answer for them.
The father is to discipline the children
The father is to teach the children about God
The husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the church, i.e. be prepared to DIE for her


This is what women have wanted... when written like this, do they really want it? This isn't bossy authority, it's leader responsibility.

Tromos
05-22-2007, 03:56 AM
The husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the church, i.e. be prepared to DIE for her




See, I think this one is misunderstood. I think the commitment here is much more than we think it is. There's a difference between "giving up your life for" and "dying for".

Let's say I come to you and say "Hey Scottie, tell me about yourself." So you talk about the things you do, your hobbies, your interests. You tell me about your love of music and maybe travel or computers or whatever.

That's your life.

I don't think it's about recognizing the opportunity to intercept a stray bullet or to jump in front of a wayward bus. It's about the willingness to give up your life, as you know it, for the sake of your wife and children. It means when you have to choose between what you want and your wife and kids, you're willing to sacrifice your desires for the sake of the family.

That being said, a good wife will recognize and love her husband for who he is and encourage him to do the things he loves because she loves him. Marriage won't be one long denial of self after another. But, as the husband, you need to recognize that, if the situation demands it, your desires, wants, even needs - your life - must be sacrificed for the sake of the family.

Personally, I think the bullet sounds easier.

skynes
05-22-2007, 06:22 AM
^ I figured this, but I was hoping by saying "be prepared to die for" giving up desires and wants for their benefit would be assumed and included, lol. Guess not :P

DarkestRose
05-22-2007, 07:23 AM
I really like the bibilical doctrine of male authority in marriage. I like the metaphors for the church and Christ. It's actually very poetic.

A lot of girls I met at church camp (where we talked about this during one session) were very against the idea though. They had the idea that male authority meant that a guy could just smack his wife around whenever. I think a lot of the feminisit "dogma" distorts the idea of biblical marriage for a lot of girls.

bob
05-22-2007, 08:18 AM
What a lot of women fail to see is that just because man is supposed to have authority over women doesn't make them unequal. For example, Christ was under God but they weren't unequal. Just had different roles.

But yeah, fascinating stuff. :)

weebird20
05-22-2007, 10:19 AM
oooh James i like what you said...

Christ was under God but they weren't unequal. Just had different roles.
That's how i think it should be in marriage...both equal but with different roles :)

I also think that the Christian man has the harder job in marriage...as Scott said...they are responsible for the spiritual, mental and physical well-being of their family...that's a lot of pressure...kinda like "with great power comes great responsibility" heehee...okies so maybe the Spiderman quote was a bit much but i hope you get what i mean :)

DarkestRose
05-22-2007, 10:25 AM
I love Spider-Man! Therefore the quote was the best part of the post.

theelectric3
05-22-2007, 07:50 PM
hmm... very interesting indeed. thanks for sharing.