Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Bible Study should women wear head covering and men wear beards ? proof?
- Thread starter thesaintman
- Start date
handy
Member
I agree with pretty much everything you state here. Obedience is most important.
However, should we obey a symbol of the principle or the principle itself. Or both? Or neither?
Believe me, as a woman in 21st century America, I get pushed back on all the time about the idea of wives needing to submit to their husbands. Mainly from other Christian women... But, if there was any doubt of the need for wifely submission, this passage, more than any other, makes it clear that Paul is speaking of an eternal principle that has its foundations in creation itself. Not negotiable.
The question at hand is: Is the head covering a symbol of that principle or integral to the principle. Can a woman submit to her husband without a head covering? What about a woman who has the personal conviction of wearing a head covering but her husband demands that she doesn't? Don't think I'm snatching at straws here, I know several women who faced exactly that issue. They felt they should wear a head covering but their husbands didn't want them to. And the main reason why they didn't want them to was because it called attention to them within the congregation.
I'm not making this up... these women genuinely faced being unsubmissive to their husbands over the symbol of the husband's authority over her. Being that one of the couples involved in this very dilemma were my own mom and dad, I can assure you that neither were motivated by a lack of understanding the inspired and eternal nature of God's word.
Butch5
Member
I have no idea. It's disobedience it's if it is.
Deborah13
Member
So do you know of any church where this veil wearing is obeyed in this country?
If not, the would mean that pastors, elders, Christian husbands, and Christian wives are disobedient, not just the women.
Butch5
Member
God had the Jews sacrifice an animal daily as a reminder of sins. If the Jews understood that it symbolized Christ should they have stopped doing it? Because of the angles doesn't sound like symbolism to me. Surely angels could see if the wives were being submissive to their husbands yet Paul still tells the women to cover their heads.
I'm sure you get quite a bit of push back and I'm not the least bit surprised that it comes from Christians. We live in a country were arrogance runs rampant. If you keep telling people they're the best in the world they start to believe it. It should be called the United States of Arrogance.
Regarding the women who feel they should wear it, I would. We are to obey God above all.
Butch5
Member
I know of churches that wear a head covering. However, it is the woman who is responsible. Paul tells the women to wear the covering, he doesn't tell the churches to make them wear it. The words he chose actually take authority for enforcement away from the churches.
Deborah13
Member
Butch, now you are side stepping. You said they should wear the head covering that Paul said they should wear and even quote Tertullian. That is a veil that covers the head/hair completely below the neck to meet the robe, that we no longer wear. Anything else would be something like a turban or even less. How in the world could the angels recognize anything besides the veil as being a true head covering? Are you saying that they are smart enough to recognize a tiny lace doillie, as being symbolic of the husbands covering over the wife, but not a wedding band? :neutral
What is the meaning of 'power on her head'?
Butch5
Member
I'm not sidestepping anything Deb. As I said, I'm not stating what the head covering is, only that it was worn. Paul doesn't state what constitutes a head covering, but only that she be covered. I'm sure the angles could recognize a wedding band, however, nowhere in Scripture did anyone say to wear a wedding band as a sign of submission. Besides, how is a wedding band a symbol of submission when both men and women wear one? Who's submitting to who?
handy
Member
The point about the sacrifices being symbols of Christ is a really good one and you're right, they would not have done well to have stopped them until Christ fulfilled their purpose.
However, I think we might be comparing apples to oranges here... both fruit but different types. Whereas both the sacrifices and the head covering are symbols... the sacrifices fulfilled a specific purpose, whereas, the only purpose that the head covering serves is the purpose of symbolizing that husbands hold headship over their wives. The Scriptures abound with texts explaining what to sacrifice, how to sacrifice, why to sacrifice, what each sacrifice was efficacious for and how Christ fulfilled them.
As for head coverings and the angels... we have this passage and that's it. That the head covering is a symbol of a husband's headship over his wife is pretty clear to me. If you are going to suggest that the cloth itself is actively involved in that authoritative/submissive relationship, and that without some kind of cloth on the woman's head, her submissiveness to her husband is compromised you're going to have to come up with some other scriptures to support that before I can accept that. I try to be careful about reading too much into the texts of things...especially when there are no other texts to support it. I apply the same principle to 1 Timothy 2:15 which states a woman will be "saved through child birth". I don't doubt that Paul made a statement that was clear enough to Timothy and the church at Ephesus, but what exactly he meant isn't clear to all the rest of us. What Paul meant by "because of the angels" is equally obscure.
At any rate... I can respect your opinion on this. After all this discussion, I will say that if a man feels his wife should wear a head covering or if the wife feels she should wear one and her husband doesn't object... by all means she should wear it. Whatever is not done of faith is sin.
However, I can't wrap my mind around a woman going against her husband's authority by wearing a symbol of his .. authority. Even the angels would have to acknowledge the irony of that.
Deborah13
Member
You have a point about the wedding bands. To me the idea of submission to my husband is just a natural thing and a wedding band is symbolic of that relationship.
So help me out here. Who would an unmarried women have as the power on her head? She may be all on her own in the church?
Butch5
Member
Hi Handy,
I posted this before you entered the discussion. When Paul said because of the angels I believe what he had in mind was what he said to the Ephesians.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: (Eph 3:9-11 KJV)
The word "by" is the Greek word "dia" and it means through. According to Paul God is making His wisdom known to principalities and powers in heavenly places (I submit these are angels) through the church. It seems the church is a visible illustration to the principalities and powers ( I submit these are angels) in the heavenly places. If this is indeed the case then it would seem that the head covering is important. Not that the cloth itself means anything but the wearing of it would show the angels that the woman is following God's commands and is being subject to her husband. Paul said in 1 Cor. that God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman. It seems to me that this is part of "the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
What about God's authority?
Butch5
Member
I would suspect it would be her father
if the father isn't saved? or dead?
oh well since you are into that a boy age 13 and a brother could be her "head" legally in pauls day he was a man
Sinthesis
Member
I don't know if this will make sense to anybody, but consider what hair meant to Samson and the Nazarite vows.
1Co 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
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.
1Co 11:4 - Every man praying or prophesying, having his head (Christ) covered (his submission to Christ hidden), dishonoureth his head (Christ).
1Co 11:5 - But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (the man) uncovered (her submission to the man advertised) dishonoureth her head (the man - because in prayer or prophesying, her submission is also to Christ, so wrongly elevating the man to the level of Christ shames the man): for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (Better she be observed as one separated from the man, dedicated unto God, shaved, and cleansed - see Numbers 6)
1Co 11:6 - For if the woman be not covered (her submission to the man advertised), let her also be shorn (as one obviously dedicated to God): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (her submission to the man hidden).
1Co 11:7 - For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (Christ), forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God (God's representative to others): but the woman is the glory of the man (represents the man to others).
1Co 11:8 - For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (woman's identity is defined by the man)
1Co 11:9 - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (woman helps the man)
1Co 11:10 - For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (To rightfully represent the man who serves Christ, the woman's head should advertise the divine power of Christ rather than the servitude of the man, lest the messengers of God attribute her good work to the man's influence instead of Christ's)
1Co 11:11 - Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (Both man and woman comprise essential parts of the whole in Christianity)
1Co 11:12 - For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (Man provides identity for the woman, while the woman provides the man with the necessary help to complete all work done in God's Name)
1Co 11:13 - Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (according to Greek custom)
1Co 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (Greek custom, not Jewish - remember Samson)
1Co 11:15 - But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (her hair is the covering, no other material needed)
1Co 11:16 - But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (Don't argue over the myriad possible symbolic physical manifestations of your spiritual submission to God)
1Co 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
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.
1Co 11:4 - Every man praying or prophesying, having his head (Christ) covered (his submission to Christ hidden), dishonoureth his head (Christ).
1Co 11:5 - But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (the man) uncovered (her submission to the man advertised) dishonoureth her head (the man - because in prayer or prophesying, her submission is also to Christ, so wrongly elevating the man to the level of Christ shames the man): for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (Better she be observed as one separated from the man, dedicated unto God, shaved, and cleansed - see Numbers 6)
1Co 11:6 - For if the woman be not covered (her submission to the man advertised), let her also be shorn (as one obviously dedicated to God): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (her submission to the man hidden).
1Co 11:7 - For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (Christ), forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God (God's representative to others): but the woman is the glory of the man (represents the man to others).
1Co 11:8 - For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (woman's identity is defined by the man)
1Co 11:9 - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (woman helps the man)
1Co 11:10 - For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (To rightfully represent the man who serves Christ, the woman's head should advertise the divine power of Christ rather than the servitude of the man, lest the messengers of God attribute her good work to the man's influence instead of Christ's)
1Co 11:11 - Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (Both man and woman comprise essential parts of the whole in Christianity)
1Co 11:12 - For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (Man provides identity for the woman, while the woman provides the man with the necessary help to complete all work done in God's Name)
1Co 11:13 - Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (according to Greek custom)
1Co 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (Greek custom, not Jewish - remember Samson)
1Co 11:15 - But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (her hair is the covering, no other material needed)
1Co 11:16 - But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (Don't argue over the myriad possible symbolic physical manifestations of your spiritual submission to God)
Esther had uncle or cousin (the language is not specific if memory serves) Mordecai as her "head" until she got married.
This headship, btw was not for dominance per se but for her protection mostly.
J
jocor
Guest
Frankly, its a command, not a personal choice. Actually, the command is to not destroy what naturally grows on the face via YHWH's creative will.