Paul and Women

[agua.]

Hey what happened to the LIKE button?

In this forum we gotta use for some reason :D

 

[Stan1953]

OK...

 

[Stan1953]

Hi Deb,

I would also add that it is not the man's place to "make" the woman submissive. She is to do that as she obeys God. Sometime this passage is used as a way for the man to gain control and that is "Not" what it is saying.

 

[Stan1953]

The passage uses the head in different ways in this passage Stan to signify both the cranium and authority. This is why Paul first introduces the subject using the line of authority.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
I stress the created order because this is the reason behind the head coverings.
1Co 11:7-10 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
This is directly from Genesis mate when Yahweh took Adam's ribs and made a help meet for him. What do you suggest this section means ?

I'm pretty sure it has to do with authority or more accurately responsibility, but I get that. What I was driving at was MEN are not the head of WOMEN. Only the HUSBAND is the head of the WIFE.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "order", other than first or second, but that means nothing to me or I think God. We/humans were the last to be created so I don't know what is significant about the order?

What do you see the headship, as Paul mentions it, means ?
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

IMO, it means co-ordinator/motivator/instigator, but relating that to God and Jesus is a little hard for me to wrap my head around. The obvious is not what I mean though, but Paul wanted them to REALIZE what he said so it seems to be a particular issue that was going on there. I know for sure that the connotation of head in v3 is NOT the same as it is in v4-13. Also the Greek uses a few different words that are translated 'head' so that just makes me want to study this a lot more. :shades

 

[agua.]

I'm pretty sure it has to do with authority or more accurately responsibility, but I get that. What I was driving at was MEN are not the head of WOMEN. Only the HUSBAND is the head of the WIFE.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "order", other than first or second, but that means nothing to me or I think God. We/humans were the last to be created so I don't know what is significant about the order?

Stan this is the point of Paul referring to the original creation of woman from the man. ( back in Eden.) He is saying that Eve was created from Adam and Adam was her head. Back then there was only the 2 of them but this order still applies today in all husbands and wives. As far as unmarried women goes I'm not sure of Paul's message but I'm assuming the father was the woman's head if she was unmarried. imo.

IMO, it means co-ordinator/motivator/instigator, but relating that to God and Jesus is a little hard for me to wrap my head around. The obvious is not what I mean though, but Paul wanted them to REALIZE what he said so it seems to be a particular issue that was going on there. I know for sure that the connotation of head in v3 is NOT the same as it is in v4-13. Also the Greek uses a few different words that are translated 'head' so that just makes me want to study this a lot more. :shades

Yeah Stan you're right about the head meaning different things in the passage but think about the overriding message and why Paul gets into talking about the hair etc. The hair covering is a symbol of the true covering ( head ) and this order of authority is shown as Yahweh, then Jesus, then man/husband , then woman/wife. Umm I'm missing something here relating to the hair being the woman's "glory" etc.

1Co 11:4-5 KJV Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Untangle what each head is here and you might be surprised how it links back to

1Co 11:3 KJV But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


Remember "because of the angels" and what happened in Eden ( and before when satan sinned ) ? Paul points out that it was the woman who was deceived in Genesis ( 1Tim 2:14 ) where Yahweh sentenced satan first for tempting Eve ( Gen3:14 ), Eve for listening to satan ( Gen 3:16 ) and Adam for hearkening to Eve ( Gen 3: 17 ). I think we can see how satan circumnavigated the headship arrangement by tempting Eve to go against what Adam had been commanded ( Yahweh gave the command not to eat to Adam ).

Also notice that when Yahweh fist dealt with the transgression he went to Adam ( the head of Eve) and then to Eve and then to satan. Even though Adam wasn't "in the transgression" ( directly tempted by satan) Yahweh held him ultimately responsible for the sin and we know this because it was through Adam that sin entered the world. This is something husbands take too lightly imo in their headship responsibility in marriage.

It's a very interesting study Stan for sure please let me know what you come up with.

 

[Deborah13]

The passage uses the head in different ways in this passage Stan to signify both the cranium and authority. This is why Paul first introduces the subject using the line of authority.

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I stress the created order because this is the reason behind the head coverings.

1Co 11:7-10 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

This is directly from Genesis mate when Yahweh took Adam's ribs and made a help meet for him. What do you suggest this section means ?

Oh I explained to Deb in post #87 why the passage refers to women under authority of the husband ( or possibly father if unmarried )

No Deb the passage doesn't suggest I have authority over the Pastor's wife she already has her covering/husband in the Pastor. It also doesn't suggest all men have authority over all women but only the head ( here it seems to be the husband ). Paul is talking about the created order and at that time there was only one man and one woman. From what I can tell woman in the passage is referring to wife ( as Eve was ) but it will also have ramifications on unmarried women I'm sure. This would likely be submission to the Dad etc.

G1135
γυνή
gunē
goo-nay'
Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: - wife, woman.




What do you see the headship, as Paul mentions it, means ?

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So in order to obey this rule a wife must wear a vail when she prays in church because of the angels.

"That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband. Εξουσια [Strong's G1849], appears here to be used for the sign or token of being under power or authority, that is, a veil, as Theophylact (Ecumenius, and Photius) explain; and so one manuscript of the Vulgate, the Sixtine edition, and some copies of the Itala, have velamen." quote from esword

I don't know if I posted this before? http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/1_corinthians/11.htm
It's much too long to post, but maybe it will help with the discuss. But I laughed when I read it. :wink

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

the Scripture as Revealed by Abba to those seeking Him and immersed in Yeshua is simple and clear. it was to me just as expected after I was born again, and like all the other little children seeking Daddy (yes , the Creator), understanding His Word required dropping/ letting go of man's understanding and/or letting go of man's excuses also.
that link at biblehub is very long and drawn out, but after a quick preview it looks basically correct.
what was to 'laugh' at ? (I had hoped before going to the link that you meant as in a laugh of joy, but don't think you meant that now having read/perused the page. It looks basically correct, knowledge-wise('meanings', 'translations', 'customs'))

 

[Stan1953]

Stan this is the point of Paul referring to the original creation of woman from the man. ( back in Eden.) He is saying that Eve was created from Adam and Adam was her head. Back then there was only the 2 of them but this order still applies today in all husbands and wives. As far as unmarried women goes I'm not sure of Paul's message but I'm assuming the father was the woman's head if she was unmarried. imo.

Sorry but I don't see Paul saying Adam was her head. He also states in v10, It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. So having authority over her OWN head means a man doesn't.
IMO you are applying headship where it doesn't exist and in a way that is not conveyed. Parnetal authority is not the same as the headship Paul depicts in marriage.

Yeah Stan you're right about the head meaning different things in the passage but think about the overriding message and why Paul gets into talking about the hair etc. The hair covering is a symbol of the true covering ( head ) and this order of authority is shown as Yahweh, then Jesus, then man/husband , then woman/wife. Umm I'm missing something here relating to the hair being the woman's "glory" etc.

Yes the message is a woman's covering, or as Paul says in v15, her long hair, so again this shows a problem locally in Corinth about women who may not have had long hair, OR were shaved, and how they had to wear something to cover their heads.
Husband/Wife yes but not man/woman, as the KJV uses the wrong words.
I find it interesting that Paul says what he does in v7, in light of Gen 1:27, so again this gives me cause to think Paul is ONLY dealing with the issue of a woman's covering when she prays or prophecies and is NOT teaching anything other than that.

Untangle what each head is here and you might be surprised how it links back to

Personally I think you would understand what Paul is saying and conveying here if you DIN'T use the KJV. He is not saying man/woman, he is saying husband/wife.

Remember "because of the angels" and what happened in Eden ( and before when satan sinned ) ? Paul points out that it was the woman who was deceived in Genesis ( 1Tim 2:14 ) where Yahweh sentenced satan first for tempting Eve ( Gen3:14 ), Eve for listening to satan ( Gen 3:16 ) and Adam for hearkening to Eve ( Gen 3: 17 ). I think we can see how satan circumnavigated the headship arrangement by tempting Eve to go against what Adam had been commanded ( Yahweh gave the command not to eat to Adam ).
Also notice that when Yahweh fist dealt with the transgression he went to Adam ( the head of Eve) and then to Eve and then to satan. Even though Adam wasn't "in the transgression" ( directly tempted by satan) Yahweh held him ultimately responsible for the sin and we know this because it was through Adam that sin entered the world. This is something husbands take too lightly imo in their headship responsibility in marriage.
It's a very interesting study Stan for sure please let me know what you come up with.

IMO it is not prudent to try and infer something that is being taught in one part of scripture into other parts of scripture that are not in the same context. I could make patterns all over the Bible but that would not be correct. It is the size it is for a reason and everything we learn in our walk cannot be condensed into a few verses.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

the Jewish woman remained in their Father's home until they married. at home, their father was the head of them, of the whole household actually, (although for sons this is different than for daughters - seek an Israelite versed in Hebrew).

when the Jewish woman married, her husband became her head. and Christ is the head of every man. this is as far as I ever saw very simple and clear in Scripture.

the single or unmarried woman without a man in the household, is awkward at best, and cannot be gone into in length here for several reasons at this time. however, an Israelite versed in Scripture honoring Yhwh may well have the simple answer sought for this, sometime after sunset tonight. they might even answer before then, Yhwh willing !

 

[agua.]

Sorry but I don't see Paul saying Adam was her head. He also states in v10, It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. So having authority over her OWN head means a man doesn't.
IMO you are applying headship where it doesn't exist and in a way that is not conveyed. Parnetal authority is not the same as the headship Paul depicts in marriage.

When Paul says the woman should have authority over her own head ( noggin ) it means that she should have a sign of authority on it ie a covering.

I'm not sure what you mean by Parental authority Stan? Oh that the Father has authority over the unmarried woman ? Ok leaving that aside and concentrating on married women why do you think Paul mentioned that the woman was the glory of the man and the man was the glory of God ?

1Co 11:7-9 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Everything concerning the headship issue covering reflects on the reason women were to have a sign of authority on the head ( noggin ).

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Can you tell me what you think "this cause" is here ?

Yes the message is a woman's covering, or as Paul says in v15, her long hair, so again this shows a problem locally in Corinth about women who may not have had long hair, OR were shaved, and how they had to wear something to cover their heads.

But why is the head covering requirement placed upon women Stan ? Shaving the head for a woman was a disgraceful thing can you think of why Paul would tell a woman who did not cover her head that she may as well shave off her hair ?

Husband/Wife yes but not man/woman, as the KJV uses the wrong words.
I find it interesting that Paul says what he does in v7, in light of Gen 1:27, so again this gives me cause to think Paul is ONLY dealing with the issue of a woman's covering when she prays or prophecies and is NOT teaching anything other than that.

Ok I'm fine sticking with husband wife as the subjects here esp since Paul refers to the Genesis account and Adam and Eve were married. Do you agree Paul refers to the creation account of man and woman ( Adam and Eve ) ?

Like I said I'm ok sticking with the husband/wife stipulation for now. Yeah it's interesting the "glory" thing.Can you tell me how this could make me think that the passage isn't teaching anything about the headship of the husband in marriage ?

Personally I think you would understand what Paul is saying and conveying here if you DIN'T use the KJV. He is not saying man/woman, he is saying husband/wife.

Stan maybe we should leave the man/woman husband/wife stipulation alone for now. Here's all the bibles I usually use. Poor KJV get's bashed up sometimes when he's no different than NIV .

(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.

(KJV) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

(KJV+) ButG1161 I wouldG2309 have youG5209 know,G1492 thatG3754 theG3588 headG2776 of everyG3956 manG435 isG2076 Christ;G5547 andG1161 the headG2776 of the womanG1135 is theG3588 man;G435 andG1161 the headG2776 of ChristG5547 is God.G2316

(LITV) But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

(NIrV) Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God.

(NIV) But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

(YLT) and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

IMO it is not prudent to try and infer something that is being taught in one part of scripture into other parts of scripture that are not in the same context. I could make patterns all over the Bible but that would not be correct. It is the size it is for a reason and everything we learn in our walk cannot be condensed into a few verses.

Yes that's true Stan but Paul sets the context of the passage by beginning with the headship issue, then moving on to the head coverings, and then explaining why with the creation account. I think we agree Paul is referring to the creation account and ( for some reason ) this is why this stipulation exists for the woman's ( wife's ) head covering ? I'll use the NIV from here in.

1Co 11:7-10 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

 

[By Grace]

What I did not make clear is my presuppositional approach of inerrancy in the autographa. By that, I mean that when God caused the original Scriptures (hence autographs (singular) and autographa), He caused the writers to uniquely write in their own personal style EXACTLY what He wanted them to say. As a result, the Bible is the direct and inerrant words of God that He wished to have us read.

It's interesting when we get into the inerrancy issue because every Statement of Faith I know of claims " inerrancy in the original autographs" which always opens a can of worms. When you say God caused the original Scriptures and directed the writers are you talking about the original autographs or do you also include the copies/ translations ie. do you accept God guided the copiers so that they did not add or take away from the originals ? If we accept our current translations are inerrant why do we insist on making the inerrancy claim only on the original Autographs ? ( I'm not asking these questions in any way supporting #2 btw. )

It is true that we do not have the autographs; but it is NOT true that they can not be reconstructed to a 99.999% accuracy,

Using a critical apparatus, it once was possible to look at a variance (not the same as an error) in the Scriptures and ascertain with a good deal of certainty that the original text was this, not that. However with the recent discoveries of more texts, (now over 6000+ according to Gary Habermas. presently professor at Liberty University) there is so much detail available that scholars are able to pinpoint exactly when and where the variants began, and then trace them through their "families". The updated numbers were on a Youtube video, but is now 404. However the bulk of the lecture is in written form HERE but you will need to take the 4500 he gives and make them larger.

What Professor Habermas is doing is using the latest version 28th of the Nesley Aland Koine Diatheke. I have the 26th, but this one is better because it is now THE ACADEMIC STANDARD for all seminarians and scholars of Greek. What makes it better are several factors, such as :

• Newly discovered Papyri listed
• Distinction between consistently cited witnesses of the first and second order abandoned
• Apparatus notes systematically checked
• Imprecise notes abandoned
• Previously concatenated notes now cited separately
• Inserted Latin texts reduced and translated
• References thoroughly revised

.
By definition, the term "autographs" means the originals. Fromm the atographs came the COPIES written in Greek, and from those (and the Latin mss cane the first translation by Erasmus, the humanist scholar. Before that, both John Hus and Wycliffe made translations into the vernacular, but Erasmus did the best job

Yeah I can't disagree with what you say here By Grace and agree Paul was dealing with many issues which interrupted the worship service. I agree also that there's no gender differentiation in the operation of the Spirit gifts and #4 accepts this and makes the exemption ie. I suggest the silence instruction upon women doesn't effect the previous allowances. We haven't delved into the beginning of 1Cor11 and how the headship issue may relate to this subject do you think it could be ? To even think about discussing this I probably need to have your understanding of 1Cor 11: 1-10 and especially of why this issue of headship had implication upon the Angels. What is your understanding of " because of the Angels" in context with headship ?

Remind me later, OK?

 

[agua.]

It is true that we do not have the autographs; but it is NOT true that they can not be reconstructed to a 99.999% accuracy,

Using a critical apparatus, it once was possible to look at a variance (not the same as an error) in the Scriptures and ascertain with a good deal of certainty that the original text was this, not that. However with the recent discoveries of more texts, (now over 6000+ according to Gary Habermas. presently professor at Liberty University) there is so much detail available that scholars are able to pinpoint exactly when and where the variants began, and then trace them through their "families". The updated numbers were on a Youtube video, but is now 404. However the bulk of the lecture is in written form HERE but you will need to take the 4500 he gives and make them larger.

What Professor Habermas is doing is using the latest version 28th of the Nesley Aland Koine Diatheke. I have the 26th, but this one is better because it is now THE ACADEMIC STANDARD for all seminarians and scholars of Greek. What makes it better are several factors, such as :

• Newly discovered Papyri listed
• Distinction between consistently cited witnesses of the first and second order abandoned
• Apparatus notes systematically checked
• Imprecise notes abandoned
• Previously concatenated notes now cited separately
• Inserted Latin texts reduced and translated
• References thoroughly revised

.
By definition, the term "autographs" means the originals. Fromm the atographs came the COPIES written in Greek, and from those (and the Latin mss cane the first translation by Erasmus, the humanist scholar. Before that, both John Hus and Wycliffe made translations into the vernacular, but Erasmus did the best job

Cool ! Yes I agree By Grace the number of manuscripts we have which have such a high percentage of agreement ( considering the different copiers ) sorta rules out #2 imo.

Remind me later, OK?

I'm fairly forgetful mate I'll try to remember :D

 

[Deborah13]

the Scripture as Revealed by Abba to those seeking Him and immersed in Yeshua is simple and clear. it was to me just as expected after I was born again, and like all the other little children seeking Daddy (yes , the Creator), understanding His Word required dropping/ letting go of man's understanding and/or letting go of man's excuses also.
that link at biblehub is very long and drawn out, but after a quick preview it looks basically correct.
what was to 'laugh' at ? (I had hoped before going to the link that you meant as in a laugh of joy, but don't think you meant that now having read/perused the page. It looks basically correct, knowledge-wise('meanings', 'translations', 'customs'))

Under verse 11:10, whole first paragraph, but mostly this made me laugh.
"There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse, and 1 Corinthians 15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any where in their work; but this is only on the words power on her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means removes all the difficulty."

None of us should feel bad if we don't understand it or can't agree on what Paul meant. Some of the finest minds of Godly men can't either. Me laughing rather in relief and the Lord is probably shaking His head and saying something like, Sheesh...
Oh and I would agree in the eastern culture that a married woman wearing a vail as a sign makes perfect sense. I would say that today a wedding ring is a sign of the same thing.

 

[agua.]

Under verse 11:10, whole first paragraph, but mostly this made me laugh.
"There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse, and 1 Corinthians 15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any where in their work; but this is only on the words power on her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means removes all the difficulty."

None of us should feel bad if we don't understand it or can't agree on what Paul meant. Some of the finest minds of Godly men can't either. Me laughing rather in relief and the Lord is probably shaking His head and saying something like, Sheesh...
Oh and I would agree in the eastern culture that a married woman wearing a vail as a sign makes perfect sense. I would say that today a wedding ring is a sign of the same thing.

Yeah Deb it's very interesting how many different interpretations there are for this. Imo though most of the conflict comes because of our perception of discrimination.

would say that today a wedding ring is a sign of the same thing.

This is interesting. Would you say that the Angels would accept the wedding ring is a sign of authority or that possibly they would know which woman saw the wedding ring in this way ? I only ask because most every wife ( and husband ) wears the rings but do they all follow what Paul said ?

 

[Deborah13]

Yeah Deb it's very interesting how many different interpretations there are for this. Imo though most of the conflict comes because of our perception of discrimination.

This is interesting. Would you say that the Angels would accept the wedding ring is a sign of authority or that possibly they would know which woman saw the wedding ring in this way ? I only ask because most every wife ( and husband ) wears the rings but do they all follow what Paul said ?

Well, I don't know what Angels would think. How would they know which woman saw the vail any certain way?
Did all women forced to wear a vail follow what Paul said? I'm assuming here you are talking about being submissive.

 

[agua.]

Well, I don't know what Angels would think. How would they know which woman saw the vail any certain way?
Did all women forced to wear a vail follow what Paul said? I'm assuming here you are talking about being submissive.

That's why I'm asking the question Deb. If Paul said the woman should wear the vail "because of the Angels" and it was accepted that the practice showed the the woman accepted the headship of the husband then the Angels would know don't you think ? ( I'm saying this from the standpoint that the issue is headship and the Angels have had a very real problem with this ).

I think "forced" to wear a vail is probably not good wording if we accept the issue is God instigated headship but yes every woman who wore a vail in that time would have understood why imo. Unless we think Paul wasn't able to make himself clear on the matter back then ( like now :D ).

 

[Deborah13]

That's why I'm asking the question Deb. If Paul said the woman should wear the vail "because of the Angels" and it was accepted that the practice showed the the woman accepted the headship of the husband then the Angels would know don't you think ? ( I'm saying this from the standpoint that the issue is headship and the Angels have had a very real problem with this ).

I think "forced" to wear a vail is probably not good wording if we accept the issue is God instigated headship but yes every woman who wore a vail in that time would have understood why imo. Unless we think Paul wasn't able to make himself clear on the matter back then ( like now :biggrin ).

OK hmm...poor wording on my part...this is my point....
If a woman is wearing a vail what does that prove? Only that she is married, that's it. It doesn't say anything about what is in her heart anymore than a wedding band does.
I think you want to understand the angels clause and I would too but I can't find anyone who really has or does.
Several think they are ministering Angels that are in attendance and women are setting a good example for them. Really? I would think they would learn more about submitting to God from men submitting to God.

 

[agua.]

OK hmm...poor wording on my part...this is my point....
If a woman is wearing a vail what does that prove? Only that she is married, that's it. It doesn't say anything about what is in her heart anymore than a wedding band does.
I think you want to understand the angels clause and I would too but I can't find anyone who really has or does.
Several think they are ministering Angels that are in attendance and women are setting a good example for them. Really? I would think they would learn more about submitting to God from men submitting to God.

Yeah true the vail doesn't necessarily show the wife's heart but it does show the understanding, and acceptance of the rule. I agree it doesn't mean that men and women follow the headship arrangement properly but it does show that we agree with it and submit to it maybe. I think the reason for the Angels clause is revealed in the use of the creation account and as Butch pointed out earlier Angels are watching us and how we behave. Could part of this watching be how we respond to Yahweh's headship arrangement ?

I don't think the Angels attend every Church gathering but they are watching us as a whole and we will judge them so possibly we also should be presenting the correct message. I think about 1/3 of them rebel against Yahweh's headship is that right ? I agree they would learn about submission to God from men but also remember the ordered headship Paul talks about.

1Co 11:3 NIV But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

There is a line of submission here and the Angels need to witness that we follow it ? They are watching how we submit to Yahweh in response to the salvation offer so it seems logical they are also watching if we understand and submit to the creation order imo.

 

[Deborah13]

Yeah true the vail doesn't necessarily show the wife's heart but it does show the understanding, and acceptance of the rule. I agree it doesn't mean that men and women follow the headship arrangement properly but it does show that we agree with it and submit to it maybe. I think the reason for the Angels clause is revealed in the use of the creation account and as Butch pointed out earlier Angels are watching us and how we behave. Could part of this watching be how we respond to Yahweh's headship arrangement ?

I don't think the Angels attend every Church gathering but they are watching us as a whole and we will judge them so possibly we also should be presenting the correct message. I think about 1/3 of them rebel against Yahweh's headship is that right ? I agree they would learn about submission to God from men but also remember the ordered headship Paul talks about.

1Co 11:3 NIV But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

There is a line of submission here and the Angels need to witness that we follow it ? They are watching how we submit to Yahweh in response to the salvation offer so it seems logical they are also watching if we understand and submit to the creation order imo.

I can agree with that. So do you think wives should be wearing vails?

 

[agua.]

I can agree with that. So do you think wives should be wearing vails?

You sure know how to get to the point Deb :D I think like you said it's more important that the wife actually agrees with and follows the arrangement and that may be sufficient. However I don't see any reason not to wear a vail especially if it was the accepted way to show this submission. Can you think of any other visible sign that would substitute ?

I can sorta compare it to water baptism in that there's a message there, and witness to observers, even though it doesn't imply we follow the reasons for it. Maybe that's not a great comparison.