That is a good one also.
So, does that mean Christ submits to the Body, the Church?
Or is it different because each other are members of the Body first and foremost?
Head Covering A Symbol To The Unseen Realm by Greg Gordon
- Thread starter sermonindex
- Start date
So, does that mean Christ submits to the Body, the Church?
Or is it different because each other are members of the Body first and foremost?
The real question isn't about who is suppose to submit to who. The real question should be "What does it mean to submit?". What (not who) is God calling upon us to submit to? I see the problem not (necessarily) in what God is asking, but in a history of man taking a generalized statement and twisting them to their own means. (Human, not necessarily male.)
As for the head coverings thing, it's one of those things that I can see tripping people up. (I'm certainly not sure which way it's meant!) Remember, God knows our hearts. That means he also knows that the Bible we read in English is a translation and that it contains things we may or may not understand. The Holy Spirit will enlighten our hearts about the things that truly matter, and we will do those things--regardless of whether or why they effect others--because God has called upon us to do them.
Personally? I've never seen a woman wear a hat inside a church. And when I was little my grandma use to tell me stories about herself going to church when she was a girl. One of her favorites was actually about a minister who did a whole sermon about not liking a woman's hat and being angry she had not removed it.
If a woman wishes to wear a hat or headscarf (by the way, they're -fabulous- in winter: I have a velvet leopard print one, though I don't think that's necessarily what we have in mind here!
) and feels that it deepens her connection or devotion to the Lord, I say have at it. But if she does not feel comfortable with this and views it as a culturalism that no longer applies, I'm pretty sure "Wore a headscarf" isn't going to be item one on God's list when he's reviewing what we did with our lives.
As for the head coverings thing, it's one of those things that I can see tripping people up. (I'm certainly not sure which way it's meant!) Remember, God knows our hearts. That means he also knows that the Bible we read in English is a translation and that it contains things we may or may not understand. The Holy Spirit will enlighten our hearts about the things that truly matter, and we will do those things--regardless of whether or why they effect others--because God has called upon us to do them.
Personally? I've never seen a woman wear a hat inside a church. And when I was little my grandma use to tell me stories about herself going to church when she was a girl. One of her favorites was actually about a minister who did a whole sermon about not liking a woman's hat and being angry she had not removed it.
If a woman wishes to wear a hat or headscarf (by the way, they're -fabulous- in winter: I have a velvet leopard print one, though I don't think that's necessarily what we have in mind here!
) and feels that it deepens her connection or devotion to the Lord, I say have at it. But if she does not feel comfortable with this and views it as a culturalism that no longer applies, I'm pretty sure "Wore a headscarf" isn't going to be item one on God's list when he's reviewing what we did with our lives.That is a good one also.
So, does that mean Christ submits to the Body, the Church?
Or is it different because each other are members of the Body first and foremost?
As scripture says, we submit one to another out of reverence for Christ. It's all part of loving one another, being humble and furthering peace in the family of God.
Ephesians 5:21
Instructions for Christian Households
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Funny how the next verse is
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
I wonder why the Holy Spirit would specify that right after telling all members of the Body to submit to each other.
Interestingly, I was checking other translations and some versions group verse 21 with the verses previous to it, whereas NIV, which you quoted, and NLT group 21 with the husbands and wives section.
BTW, I am not arguing my beliefs here, just what the Word says.
1 Peter 3:7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.<NLT>
or NIV-7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
Verse 7 here comes the closest to saying husbands should submit to their wives, although not in the same words. Basically, if you honor and love your wife, you won't knowingly make her upset or angry with you. And as husbands know, that means submitting to your wife on the things she cares about. (Major should give me a like/amen on that!)
Also here in 1 Peter 3, it talks a little about how a Christian woman should dress. Nowhere here does it mention anything about a head covering. I was brought up with the teaching that "head covering" was considered as their hair. So no bald women or men's buzz style cuts.
On this subject, later on in 1 Corinthians 11 says this:
(NLT)-13 Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? 14 Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair? 15 And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering. 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.
(KJV)-
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
It does say 'Judge for yourselves' and 'if you want to argue or be contentious, we have no other custom'. So the HS does say it is customary. Customs can change.
Really? Using a "Glee" clip? I'm just guessing what that is from. I recognized the actor. Also the little cuff roll ups give it away.
I refused to watch "Glee", so how would I know? So, no worries that I am compromised, Big Moose! Just agreeing with ya in a fun way.
How about this one?
Sisters wearing some sort of head-covering when we gather is something that I used to have difficulty with. I always used to ask, But why? Why is an outward thing like that necessary? But, in time, the Lord graciously led me to understand the truth which underlies the practice. That's too vast really to go in to here, and I'm not able to do it justice, really. But, basically, it's deeply connected with the thought of headship and authority, and the Lord Himself gives us the example in that, as in all things. Matthew 8:9 presents the Lord as "one under authority". He took a place of subjection to the Father. We take a place of subjection to Him. Woman takes a place of subjection to man. There's glory in that. Christ took up a place of Sonship in order to glorify God. We glorify Christ by subjecting ourselves to Him - and since man is Christ's glory, it ought to be displayed - man must be uncovered. Woman is man's glory, being subject to him, but man's glory must be covered, so the woman covers her head. That is taken account of by angels - they see God glorified on the earth. These are timeless principles, not merely custom or culture. We'll only value the covering and uncovering if we value the truth which underlies it. The thing itself is of no value if we don't understand what God means by it. Like anything we do, it can become an empty ritual if we don't have the meaning of it in our hearts. Going to church is of no value to us if we don't know why we're doing it or what we're there for - it can just become about keeping up appearances. We have to be real. If we're real inwardly, we'll know the value of outward things such as this.
Woman does not take a place of subjection to men. That is where your theology diverges from God's word.
It isn't to be a ritual at all.
"But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman's head is the man, and the Christ's head God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3
"Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness..." - 1 Timothy 2:11-12
As to ritual, I quite agree. In the same way, the Lord's supper isn't to be a ritual either, but if we do it, not appreciating what it means and therefore not entering into the occasion in spirit, then it becomes just a ritual, in which there's nothing for God. The Supper is an immensely precious occasion, one in which the Lord comes into the midst and leads the praises of the assembly to the Father. It's a foretaste of heaven. It's vital that we do hold the Supper, and that we enter into it in our spirits.
We should be both obedient in our actions and real in our convictions, both things are required of God.
As I have said before, "kephale" is used by Paul in the sense of "origin or source" as in "the head of the river", which is it's upper region, or source. the verse in question, 1 Corinthians 11:3 means that the source of man is Christ, the source of woman is man, and the source of Christ is God, the Father.
No man is my covering except for the man I am married to.
In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul is simply laying down the foundation for women to appropriately behave while learning int he assembly, as they had been out of order and he was addressing that aspect. Your idea of authority and the true meaning of "authentein" diverge, I would imagine, or you wouldn't be using the verse here.
The submissive and quiet thing is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider the full section if you are a woman who has not, can't, or is not planning to bear children:
1 Timothy 11-15 : (NLT)
11. Women should learn quietly and submissively.12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve.14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Well that's interesting! o_OAnyone have any thoughts? I'm pretty sure this is an offhand comment and not a counter to what we are taught to think of as salvation. But still... The way it is written actually does make it sound like bearing a child is the principle requirement of salvation for a woman and that all else follows. That can't be right. (Can it?)
I've heard lots of women get upset about being quiet, submissive, or being required to have respect for their husband. Yet this has never come up Why?
UPDATE: I went and looked up further commentary about this and apparently what it is technically referencing is Mary's role as Jesus' mother; not that whether an individual woman gives birth or not is a clear indicator of her own salvation. Another popular interpretation is to say that the woman's role is as mother / wife / "in the home" in general. The ideal, of course, is that women will be mothers but the weird context of the verse is not as literal as it appears.
1 Timothy 11-15 : (NLT)
11. Women should learn quietly and submissively.12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve.14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Well that's interesting! o_OAnyone have any thoughts? I'm pretty sure this is an offhand comment and not a counter to what we are taught to think of as salvation. But still... The way it is written actually does make it sound like bearing a child is the principle requirement of salvation for a woman and that all else follows. That can't be right. (Can it?)
I've heard lots of women get upset about being quiet, submissive, or being required to have respect for their husband. Yet this has never come up Why?
UPDATE: I went and looked up further commentary about this and apparently what it is technically referencing is Mary's role as Jesus' mother; not that whether an individual woman gives birth or not is a clear indicator of her own salvation. Another popular interpretation is to say that the woman's role is as mother / wife / "in the home" in general. The ideal, of course, is that women will be mothers but the weird context of the verse is not as literal as it appears.
Last edited:
I agree with what Andrew Wommack has to say about the verse, here:
http://www.awmi.net/bible/1ti_02_15
Reading now. Thank you. This is extremely helpful.
I think it's much more likely that Paul uses the word here in the sense of "head, ruler, lord." It would be very strange for him to speak about God being the origin or source of Christ. Christ is God in His own Person, and we have to guard that with due reverence. There can be no doubt at all, however, that Christ's head was God. He took on a bondman's form, came into a place of subjection. This is what Paul is speaking about here - authority and subjection. Christ was the perfect model and example in that. When we look at Him, we see the glory that there is in subjection.
I've always understood that verse to mean that women will be preserved through the dangers of childbearing, given those moral conditions.
*nod* I can see that as a possible interpretation. I've been reading various takes on this section since I first quoted it. It was a bit of a shock when I first read it. (Hadn't seen it before--I get the feeling this is not something people generally want to highlight.) The good news, I suppose, is that the amount of effort I've taken to get a grasp on this is useful since this will likely be one of the more "Wait, what?" situations I could have encountered.
No, the use of the word, "kephale", in this instance is in reference to "source" or "origin". Of course, as Jesus is God, He has no "head", but He does have a source---the Father. Man is the source of woman and Christ as Creator is the source of man.
Seems to me that in his original state, Adam was under the direct headship of God who was his Creator. However he lost that position through sin and it can only be renewed throguh faith on the grounds of the shed blood of Christ. Therefore, does it seem to you that in 1 Corth. 11:3-4 that Paul is making known the truth concerning the relationship between Christ and every TRUE believer in the Church in Corinth?
If that is the case, then the believing man is placed in a position to act in the capacity as "the image and glory of God" as stated in verse #7.
I believe that Paul is sateing that GOD is the head of ALL! It seems to me that he is presenting the pattern of authority and subjection seem in his divine relationship as having a bearing on the practical realization of preceding headships----
Christ is the head of man----man is the head of woman-----BUT God is head of all, which is the highest order of supremacy.