Question for Women...

Im reading the King james....

And Joe says that the same word has two meanings! Because A woman dishonors her head (the husband) by looking like a prostitute by uncovering her physcal head. A man dishonors his head (GOd) by covering His physical head beceause his head is the image of God.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 28 2004,1:24)]The Genesis account of Creation say that God made man and from man God made women.  You have a heirarchy of sorts.  God (Jesus, the Holy Spirit) - Man - Women that recognizes the headship from the creation account.  This headship is symbolically prevelant throughout the bible.  But, anybody being second class is not in the bible.  The hierarcy is in place for accountability.  I am, as head of the family, singularly accountable for my family.  Don't take this out of context.  If I say to my family that today we shall go out and rape and pillage our neighbours, I will be held accountable for that decision, I will be held accountable for the actions.  Of course I would not decide such a thing.  I would also not decide to starve my family or hurt them.  I treat them with as much respect as I would give myself.

Jesus also blurs the "hierarchy" lines by calling us his friends and co-heirs.  And in such relationships, there is no heirarchy, rather an equality.  Equality with God, no.  We are not God, we are not little gods, we will not become gods.  But with the one part of the trinity (Jesus, the Son), we become equals.  I don't know what that means but, I am very excited to find out.

As for women covering their heads, well, not doing it will not stop them from getting into heavan.  But they will be accountable for not doing it.  Whats the punishment?  I doubt it is "one day in hell for you!"  The bible speaks that we store treasures in heavan when we are obedient to God.  This is probably a case of a little less treasure for some.
Click to expand...
Thanks Peon!

I only disagree with one thing, you said, "anybody being second class is not in the bible".

Weren't slaves considered second class?

And how do you assert that women were not considered second class with what I posted earlier? There are many verses in the bible that implicate women being second class.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Sep. 28 2004,1:38)]Im reading the King james....

And Joe says that the same word has two meanings! Because A woman dishonors her head (the husband) by looking like a prostitute by uncovering her physcal head. A man dishonors his head (GOd) by covering His physical head beceause his head is the image of God.
Click to expand...
Why doesn't the Bible say that though?

The Bible clearly used kephale, a physical head.
 
To God they are not second Class..
Women are not lesser then men, but we are their head, Once again it is not for reasons of us being greater its for reasons of Order, they were created for us so we are their head, but God loves them equally.
 
There may be, but not in these verses.

EDIT

There are four words that are translated "head"

kephalaioo
wound in the head  

kephale
head, heads

oikodespotes
head of a household, head of the house, head of the household

stachus
head, heads, heads of grain
 
Slavery is something God has always frowned upon, but allowed the Hebrews to participate in. But, God didn't make it ultimate master - ultimate slave. There were many conditions of being allowed to own slaves, the most important one being the concept of Jubilee, where every 50 years, all slaves are freed from their bonds to their master. Totally nonexistant in the concept of slavery. Also, slaves were afforded many benefits that went (goes) against the traditional concepts of slavery, such as the ability to own land and in some cases, having the choice to remain a slave or to be allowed to go free.

Also, slavery, took on a completely new complexion (new light) with Jesus sacrifice. Masters are to treat slaves with respect, fear and sincerity of heart. And not to threaten them since the master and the slave have the same Master in heavan, who shows no favoritism.

I don't personally see anything wrong with having a slave (so to speak) so long as the master treats the slave as Jesus will treat the master. In some ways, as an employer, I can be defined as a slave master. But I do not treat my employees within the context of conventional slavery (or even within the context of the conventional employer - employee relationship). They are free to leave my employement without fear, I pay them fairly, I am just with them when they goof up. I don't whip them into submission, my employees willingly submit themselves to me. I don't abuse them. I treat them as I would want my "headship" (Christ) to treat me, to within the best of my ability. I don't beat their respect out of them, I've earned it. I ask nothing from my employees that I have not already done for them.

Women played a very important role in Jesus' life. Maybe even more so then the men. Their actions teach us that it is possible to submit to completely to Jesus. How to give him praise.
 
Gods_Peon

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Jesus also blurs the "hierarchy" lines by calling us his friends and co-heirs. And in such relationships, there is no heirarchy, rather an equality. Equality with God, no. We are not God, we are not little gods, we will not become gods. But with the one part of the trinity (Jesus, the Son), we become equals. I don't know what that means but, I am very excited to find out.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As for women covering their heads, well, not doing it will not stop them from getting into heavan. But they will be accountable for not doing it. Whats the punishment? I doubt it is "one day in hell for you!" The bible speaks that we store treasures in heavan when we are obedient to God. This is probably a case of a little less treasure for some.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this one more?
 
Wow.

I'm simply speechless.

You condone slavery? AND admit God condones slavery? How can God in his omnipotent benevolence condone slavery? ANY kind of slavery?
 
I agree Gods_Peon and ByblosHex.

Women are to submit to their husbands. I was created by God as a helper to my husband and since The Fall, I am to submit to my husband and have only desire for him.

I have had problems with the part about covering my head in church, hence the questions to Gods_Peon. I have heard discussions that having my head covered actually refers to my relationship with my husband as well as discussions that say my head should be covered in church. I can honestly say, I have no clue.

I believe it is 2nd Timothy that says woman are not to teach men. Not a problem there as far as I am concerned, as long as there is a qualified man there to teach. But, I would think that it would be better for a woman to share the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, than to say nothing because there were no men.
 
Specifically, the verse you are referring to says, "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Sounds pretty harsh to me.

Just as harsh as, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

According to this verse, you're not allowed to speak in church or to ask questions in church or of anyone for that matter, only your husband.
 
Her husband is to be qualified to teach and provide everything to her, and by her turning to someone else it dishonors him.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Sep. 28 2004,6:02)]Women are to submit to their husbands.  I was created by God as a helper to my husband and since The Fall, I am to submit to my husband and have only desire for him.  
Click to expand...
Oh my. Don't you think that's a bit of a dangerous position for you to be in? If nothing else, it does much to lower self esteem and opens you up to abuse.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Sep. 28 2004,6:55)]Her husband is to be qualified to teach and provide everything to her, and by her turning to someone else it dishonors him.
Click to expand...
That's a nice theory Byblos, but not every husband is a master theologian. What happens when the husband doesn't know the answer to a question? What's a wife to do? Oh yeah, she's supposed to keep her mouth shut and not ask questions in church. WHY are women not allowed to ask questions in church?

Byblos, that church you go to, do they have any women in ministerial positions? Do the women that sit in service have their heads covered? Do they ask questions of the ministers?
 
My friend goes to a church where the women don't ever wear pants they always dress in skirts and dresses. They think a women should act like a women.
 
Well dark, the wopman could ask the man to seek the answer for her, that way he has provided. Im not saying they should ask about Gods word, but if a woman keeps thought from her husband and shares them with others, or gets company from somone else, she is dishonoring him.

There is only one Pastor, and its Joe. Women do work in the offices and the store and are teachers of the children yes, I see no wrong in that.

Heads covered? Didnt we already go through this? The heads in the corinthian church were to be covered as a woman without her head covered, and often shaved was a prostitute, so a woman would wear a hat to show she isnt a prostitute, and again we arent in ancient Corinth now are we, or they surely would ear hats!
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Sep. 28 2004,8:25)]
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Well dark, the wopman could ask the man to seek the answer for her, that way he has provided. Im not saying they should ask about Gods word, but if a woman keeps thought from her husband and shares them with others, or gets company from somone else, she is dishonoring him.
Click to expand...

Sure the woman could ask her husband to ask the church. That's not my point. My point is, why can't the woman just ask the church leader a question? Why is that WRONG? Byblos, what you are saying is that it is wrong for a woman to gain knowledge independant of her husband. I don't see how women could swallow that.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There is only one Pastor, and its Joe. Women do work in the offices and the store and are teachers of the children yes, I see no wrong in that.
Click to expand...

There are Cavalry Chapels all over the country. Are there any women in a ministerial position in those churches? If not, are women ALLOWED to be in a ministerial position?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Heads covered? Didnt we already go through this? The heads in the corinthian church were to be covered as a woman without her head covered, and often shaved was a prostitute, so a woman would wear a hat to show she isnt a prostitute, and again we arent in ancient Corinth now are we, or they surely would ear hats!
Click to expand...

I believe Joe is incorrect in this arena. I know you don't hold my opinions in high regard, so I found a teacher and elder at Community Bible Chapel that discusses this topic in great detail. His name is Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M. Here is a synopsis:

To sum up verses 1-16, Paul is instructing women to cover their heads in order to demonstrate to the angels and celestial powers their submission to God’s appointed authority. Paul does not present head coverings as a matter of his opinion, but as an apostolic tradition. He does not describe this as a matter of Christian liberty, or as a personal conviction, but as a matter of obedience. (“Let her cover her head” in verse 6 is an imperative, buttressed by the “ought” of verse 10.) Paul mentions no other alternative symbol nor does he imply there may be some other way to symbolize submission to male headship. He also speaks of the head covering of women as the consistent practice of every church and not just that of the Corinthian church. Anyone who would wish to debate with Paul over his teaching in these verses seeks to reject a tradition held and practiced in every church."

Nothing is clearer in verses 3-9 than that Paul wants the woman to wear a head covering because such adornment appropriately distinguishes women from men. Indeed, the focus on male headship over women in verse 3 shows that Paul wants women to wear a head covering in order to show that they are submissive to male headship.154

Those who hold to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and who consistently employ sound methods of interpretation, find it difficult to come to any other conclusions than those stated above. We must ask the question: “Do Paul’s words apply to us just as they did to the Corinthians, and if so, how?”

The assumption is often made that we must first understand the cultural setting of a particular passage before we can understand or apply it. Knowing the cultural background of any text is helpful, but it is not mandatory....Corinth appears not to have one given culture; rather Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with a wide diversity of cultures....Paul indicates that his teaching in this epistle is for every Christian in every culture. These truths are not culture-bound; thus, we need not know all we might wish to know about the cultural setting in Corinth.

Even if interesting and enlightening, there is a reason why a knowledge of the culture of Corinth is not necessary. Head covering is a symbol, a symbol designed to convey a message both to men and to angels. The symbol of head covering does not derive from the culture of Corinth, or our own culture, but from the nature of the Godhead and the divine distinctions God has determined and defined. These symbols have a message for culture, but they do not gain their message from culture. It is Scripture—not society—which provides us with the meanings of divine symbols.

As we read through the Bible, do we ever find any instance where godly men or women set aside or modified a commandment of God in order not to accommodate their culture? I cannot think of any. I can think of instances where men made concessions to their culture, but never compromises.

Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever find concessions or compromises made to culture when it requires disobedience to God’s commands. Head covering is a command, a tradition which was to be followed by every woman in every church. There is no reason and no room for compromise or change, and Paul does not so much as hint that there is. Why then are we so quick to make such changes, and why are we so bold to speak of doing so because of culture?

The fact that all women wear their hair longer than men (as a rule) is used as the premise on which Paul builds to show another reason why women should have their heads covered. In verse 6, Paul argues that if a woman will not cover her head, she should shave it. Thus, a woman’s long hair is not sufficient. Furthermore, a woman’s long hair is her glory, and her head covering veils this glory so that her husband is preeminent. One final observation: if all women in general wear long hair, then long hair does not distinguish the submissive Christian woman from the rest, but a head covering does.

I am hearing the word “legalism” a lot lately, and I do not like what it implies. Legalism, of course, is wrong and ought to be avoided. But the solution is not to throw out all the rules or commands of Scripture. A legalist is one who has a “fatal attraction” to rules. The rules become primary, and the principles get lost in the shuffle. A legalist gets lost in the details, the “gnats,” and loses sight of the “camels,” the underlying principles and motives. A legalist does not keep the commands of God because he loves God; he keeps the rules because he thinks that doing so makes him better than others, and because rule-keeping is the way to earn God’s favor and blessings. A legalist sticks to the rules because they deal with outward, external standards. Legalism is wrong.

Paul commands women to wear a head covering. We do not do well to ignore any command of God. To set one command aside is not only wrong, it sets a precedent. Can we now set aside any command we do not fully understand or which we dislike and with which we disagree?

It is now time for me to turn the question around. Why is this simple act such a problem to so many today? Is it really that Paul’s meaning is so hard to grasp? We should read this text repeatedly. For me, the more I read it, the more clear his message is.

For some, the symbol of wearing a head covering may be a big thing because it is. If the symbol of head covering is to reflect our submission, not only to male headship but to God’s distinctions and His ways of doing things, we may need to ask ourselves whether we are truly submissive to God.

I think that while I have not answered every question you may have on this passage, I have answered some, and that my understanding of this text is clear. You may very well disagree with it. And if you do, I hope and pray it is for good and biblical reasons. If my message has caused you who differ with me to rethink your position, and to be more convinced about your conclusions than mine, I think I have done my job.

There you have it.

The full text can be found here.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Sep. 28 2004,8:25)]Well dark, the wopman could ask the man to seek the answer for her, that way he has provided. Im not saying they should ask about Gods word, but if a woman keeps thought from her husband and shares them with others, or gets company from somone else, she is dishonoring him.
Click to expand...
That is ridiculous.
 
I dont htink its wrong for a woman to gain knownlegde outside of her husband... But I think she should turn to him for all of her needs and if he cannot provide she should turn to God.

In corinth women wore hats, a prostitute wanted to show she was a prostitute, so she wore no hat. Aften she also would shave her head so there was no boubt she is a protitute, and often these prostitutes would hang out by the temple, so if a woman who was not a prostitute would walk around without a hat she would seem to other men as if she were availible, thus dishonoring her husband.

There are calvarys all over the world... I do not know of any female Senior Pastors, but then again I only know 2 of them, look on the CalvaryChapel.com website and check every last location and see for youself I guess. I doubt there are any rules against it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top