traveller Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2008 About five years ago I wrote a thread about head coverings called "For this cause ought a woman to have power on her head . . . because of the angels" You might find it an interesting read. Peace. It is a blessing to read, brother. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I simply think it's a clear picture of God's order. Our God is a God of order. That makes sense. Thanks, Bibs. However, did Paul literally mean "he [man] is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."? This says that women are not the image and glory of God, but we are merely the glory of man. I'm hoping Paul is merely laying out the order of things and nothing more. I do not believe he meant that woman is not the image and glory of God, since elsewhere [Genesis 1:27] it says she is. Don't read too much into it, and don't take it out of the context of Scripture. Use Scripture to interpret Scripture. That's how it works. It's just amazing the way God did that! What a mighty God we serve! Now 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. It also says that the head of Christ is God, does that make Christ lower than God? What does it say elsewhere in the Bible about them being equal? They are equal, but each has separate roles. In order for God's will to be complete, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit have to fulfill certain roles, separate but equal roles. Marriage is the same way. Each has roles, separate but equal roles. Ok, this is getting off topic. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xan Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,060 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 18 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/02/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/23/1970 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I simply think it's a clear picture of God's order. Our God is a God of order. That makes sense. Thanks, Bibs. However, did Paul literally mean "he [man] is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."? This says that women are not the image and glory of God, but we are merely the glory of man. I'm hoping Paul is merely laying out the order of things and nothing more. I do not believe he meant that woman is not the image and glory of God, since elsewhere [Genesis 1:27] it says she is. Don't read too much into it, and don't take it out of the context of Scripture. Use Scripture to interpret Scripture. That's how it works. It's just amazing the way God did that! What a mighty God we serve! Now 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. It also says that the head of Christ is God, does that make Christ lower than God? What does it say elsewhere in the Bible about them being equal? They are equal, but each has separate roles. In order for God's will to be complete, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit have to fulfill certain roles, separate but equal roles. Marriage is the same way. Each has roles, separate but equal roles. Ok, this is getting off topic. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack! Thanks, Bibs. That makes sense. BTW, I hijacked it, but my questions were answered, so let's go back to our regularly scheduled thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayfarer122 Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 132 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2008 I enjoyed wearing a headcovering when the verse was pointed out to me. There is a group in town of "do-it-yourself" church people that really pushed this. (They had seen Pearl's book.) They were shown to be real hypocrites and DH actually asked us to stop wearing the headcoverings so that we were not associated with them. That's when I took a closer look at this passage and did what my DH asked me to do. I miss the headcovering since it was a nice reminder of the true meaning, not to mention the practicality, but I don't want to be a stumbling block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 So what is the headcovering that women should/would wear. A simple hat, a baseball cap, a scarf? Is any one thing more acceptable over another? What is prefered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2008 Scarfs are great! Of course, my motive for saying tht might be because I look so dorky in a hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenLovesMischief Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,791 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/13/1977 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I have scarves personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Scarfs are great! Of course, my motive for saying tht might be because I look so dorky in a hat. DITTO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC02 Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1971 Share Posted December 4, 2008 What does your culture dictate that women should wear as a covering? Westerners have no such traditions -- no way for a woman to show submission to her husband and/or God. Paul's original readers would have known exactly what was acceptable. To impose Middle-Eastern, first-century customs on Christians today is beyond silly. Didn't Paul make it plain that this was not a Church custom or obligation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted December 4, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,052 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 426 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2008 What does your culture dictate that women should wear as a covering? Westerners have no such traditions -- no way for a woman to show submission to her husband and/or God. Paul's original readers would have known exactly what was acceptable. To impose Middle-Eastern, first-century customs on Christians today is beyond silly. Didn't Paul make it plain that this was not a Church custom or obligation? So, what was Paul saying, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts