Head Covering A Symbol To The Unseen Realm by Greg Gordon

[Major]

Nonsense! You cannot seem to discern what is cultural advice from Paul and what is not. Definitely, the headcovering was for the custom of the day. There is no command by God for us to wear headcoverings. We know that it is not for this culture and that Paul didn't mean it to be a for-all-time edict.

Your literality in this regard is self-serving and only serves to divide the Body of Christ. This is petty stuff, and we are warned against arguing about it. That is the bigger command.

I think it would help everyone to consider the reality of the times in which Paul wrote to the Corinthians who if you will all remember were converted Jews. They of course broght with them the legalities and laws of Judasim which is one of the reason Paul wrote to them.
CORRECTION!!!

1 Corth. 11:5........
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaven".

In Paul's day, the Jewish men always covered their heads in the synagogue and the Greeks, both men and women were uncovered. A woman unveiled would send the signal that she did not acknowledge a visible human head....."The Man".
Therefore she would SHAME herself, and she might as well be shorn or shaven. The only real way to understand this is to read Numbers 5:17-19.

So lets look at Numbers 5:17-19...........
"And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse".

So then, every man who saw a woman such as this knew that she was of ill repute because she was "unveiled".

What is the point??????? The Greek verb in the verse of 1 Corth. 11:5 translated as......
"To be shorn" means a SINGLE act.

The Greek verb in in that verse "To be shaven".....means a REPEATED act.

So---IF a woman insisted on uncovering her head CONTINUOUSLY, then let her shave her hair ------- BUT NO woman who had the slightest sense of shame would ever think of doing such a thing.

THAT is way Paul said.....
"IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered".

 

[Euphemia]

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.

Yes God is the head, or originator of all things. Mankind as you say, in Christ, "is placed in a position to act in the capacity as 'the image and glory of God' as stated in verse #7." Yet in this case, Paul was merely addressing the cultural custom of head covering with regard to women who have become Christians and have been saved out of their paganism, where being bald was part of their persona as priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite, which was prevalent at that time.

Paul does go into the chronological order of Creation, with the male first and the female second. There was absolutely a chronological order in God's creation. In Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians 11:3, the word "kephale" meaning head is also the same word used for "origin, source". In other words, Christ is the origin/ source for every man; The man is the origin/source for the woman; God is the origin/source for Christ. There was no argument about Paul's discussion here, because the churches then did have women in leadership, and it was acceptable then, as it should be now.

Man and woman are equal partners, created in the image of God. Even God Himself is three equal persons...no hierarchy there. But there is no hierarchical order in the Church. Hierarchy is a man-made idea. Nowhere is the absolute principle of equality contradicted in scripture. Men are equal to women, all races are equal, all ethnicities, all levels of prosperity before God Almighty.

 

[Major]

Yes God is the head, or originator of all things. Mankind as you say, in Christ, "is placed in a position to act in the capacity as 'the image and glory of God' as stated in verse #7." Yet in this case, Paul was merely addressing the cultural custom of head covering with regard to women who have become Christians and have been saved out of their paganism, where being bald was part of their persona as priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite, which was prevalent at that time.

Paul does go into the chronological order of Creation, with the male first and the female second. There was absolutely a chronological order in God's creation. In Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians 11:3, the word "kephale" meaning head is also the same word used for "origin, source". In other words, Christ is the origin/ source for every man; The man is the origin/source for the woman; God is the origin/source for Christ. There was no argument about Paul's discussion here, because the churches then did have women in leadership, and it was acceptable then, as it should be now.

Man and woman are equal partners, created in the image of God. Even God Himself is three equal persons...no hierarchy there. But there is no hierarchical order in the Church. Hierarchy is a man-made idea. Nowhere is the absolute principle of equality contradicted in scripture. Men are equal to women, all races are equal, all ethnicities, all levels of prosperity before God Almighty.

So then you are advocating "Congregational" authority instead of Hierarchy/clergy??

I think that you my sister will agree with me that the Bible is God's Holy Word and it tells us the church was established by Christ Himself in Matt. 16:18. He did not leave the matter of establishing His church with human wisdom nor did He leave us in the dark as to what the church should be. He left His Word and complete instructions to deal with every aspect of establishing His church.

I also think that you will agree that a lot of the practices of churches we see today come from a mixture of the Bible and man's traditions. What we as absolute truth believe are actually actions of men that have been passed down through time and developed over their history as Bible facts and doctrine.

An example would be the practice of infant baptism mentioned in the Bible. Yet, several religious denominations practice infant baptism. Why? Because in their past some of their church leaders established it based on their misunderstanding of Bible passages such as Acts 16:33. Therefore, these "church fathers" established the practice as doctrine, therefore today it is accepted without question. In truth their "church fathers" are their authority for what they believe and practice and not the Bible which is a product of CLERGY/Hierarchy.

What are your thoughts????

 

[Euphemia]

So then you are advocating "Congregational" authority instead of Hierarchy/clergy??

There is no hierarchy in the Body of Christ. Jesus is our head, and that's it.

I think that you my sister will agree with me that the Bible is God's Holy Word and it tells us the church was established by Christ Himself in Matt. 16:18. He did not leave the matter of establishing His church with human wisdom nor did He leave us in the dark as to what the church should be. He left His Word and complete instructions to deal with every aspect of establishing His church.

Yes, and every spiritual gift is found functioning within a good local body of believers. We all need to be functioning in them according to the word. Our pastors are gifted with a spiritual gift of pastoring (or should be), but they, just like any other spiritually gifted member of that body, is charged with performing his spiritual role side by side, shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the membership.

I also think that you will agree that a lot of the practices of churches we see today come from a mixture of the Bible and man's traditions. What we as absolute truth believe are actually actions of men that have been passed down through time and developed over their history as Bible facts and doctrine.

Yes, rite and ritual and man's tradition---they need to be recognized for what they are, and most of them discarded.

An example would be the practice of infant baptism mentioned in the Bible. Yet, several religious denominations practice infant baptism. Why? Because in their past some of their church leaders established it based on their misunderstanding of Bible passages such as Acts 16:33. Therefore, these "church fathers" established the practice as doctrine, therefore today it is accepted without question. In truth their "church fathers" are their authority for what they believe and practice and not the Bible which is a product of CLERGY/Hierarchy.

What are your thoughts????

Such man-made traditions, turned into "church" doctrine have done nothing but harm, bringing religiosity and churchianity to bear in a person's life, rather than a true, intimate relationship with the Person of Jesus Christ we are to be living our lives with and for. For such congregations, the word of God is only a book.

 

[Big Moose]

"churchianity" Good one!

 

[Grant Melville]

Man and woman are equal partners, created in the image of God. Even God Himself is three equal persons...no hierarchy there. But there is no hierarchical order in the Church. Hierarchy is a man-made idea. Nowhere is the absolute principle of equality contradicted in scripture. Men are equal to women, all races are equal, all ethnicities, all levels of prosperity before God Almighty.

I think we have to look to God in order to understand subjection. We can't possibly understand it - or anything of God - by looking at the order (or disorder) of man's world. Subjection doesn't imply inequality. In coming into manhood and the position of sonship, the Jesus subjected Himself to His God and Father. Are divine Persons inferior or superior to one another? No. But Jesus has taken a subject place to the Father, and thus brought glory to Him. The Holy Spirit has also put Himself in a place of subjection - He is sent of the Father (Galatians 4:6). Both the Lord Jesus and the Spirit are 'sent Ones'. In order to be sent, one must first be subject.

 

[Grant Melville]

Yet in this case, Paul was merely addressing the cultural custom of head covering with regard to women who have become Christians and have been saved out of their paganism, where being bald was part of their persona as priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite, which was prevalent at that time.

I think @Major has already addressed this point, but I think it bears repeating. The apostle isn't speaking about shaven-headed women.

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved woman. For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it be shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered." (1 Corinthians 11:6).

An uncovered woman is the equivalent of a shaved woman, it is equally shameful. Paul is speaking about women with a full head of hair, and how their leaving their heads uncovered is just as shameful as if they had shaved heads.

 

[Euphemia]

I think @Major has already addressed this point, but I think it bears repeating. The apostle isn't speaking about shaven-headed women.

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved woman. For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it be shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered." (1 Corinthians 11:6).

An uncovered woman is the equivalent of a shaved woman, it is equally shameful. Paul is speaking about women with a full head of hair, and how their leaving their heads uncovered is just as shameful as if they had shaved heads.

The reason Paul was bringing instruction to the churches was due to the influx of pagan women and some of them were bald ex-priestesses.

An uncovered woman today has hair, and doesn't need to take part in an ancient tradition of dress from a middle eastern culture.

You do misunderstand Paul.

 

[Grant Melville]

The reason Paul was bringing instruction to the churches was due to the influx of pagan women and some of them were bald ex-priestesses.

An uncovered woman today has hair, and doesn't need to take part in an ancient tradition of dress from a middle eastern culture.

You do misunderstand Paul.

Euphemia, I have to admit that I'm finding your position rather contradictory. You say that musical instruments - although never connected with Christian worship in the scripture - are to be used, and that an ancient Jewish tradition (if we can call it that) is therefore relevant today. Yet the commandment of Lord, through Paul, to the Christian Church - you say that that is a defunct custom? Where's the basis for that?

 

[Euphemia]

Euphemia, I have to admit that I'm finding your position rather contradictory. You say that musical instruments - although never connected with Christian worship in the scripture - are to be used, and that an ancient Jewish tradition (if we can call it that) is therefore relevant today. Yet the commandment of Lord, through Paul, to the Christian Church - you say that that is a defunct custom? Where's the basis for that?

I have said nothing contradictory. Musical instruments have been used since the beginning. "Psalmos" means praise with instruments, and the word is used in the New Testament!

God has not made any command to us about head coverings. Paul was speaking to the custom of his day. It takes a bit of prayer and Holy Spirit interpretation to gain that understanding.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather or fashion. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.

 

[Big Moose]

serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them

And that is a tricky balancing act. To be all things to others so as to win some to Christ. Yet to not be of the world. We cannot "endear" ourselves to the world. But you used the term "unchurched" and I suppose that means those who are curious enough to come to church and possibly be changed by the Gospel.
Still there is no hard and fast rules on what customs and traditions should be held on to or just dropped so as to attract or be inviting to outsiders, unchurched, or disaffected one time church goers. And I think head coverings would fall into this category.

 

[Euphemia]

And that is a tricky balancing act. To be all things to others so as to win some to Christ. Yet to not be of the world. We cannot "endear" ourselves to the world. But you used the term "unchurched" and I suppose that means those who are curious enough to come to church and possibly be changed by the Gospel.
Still there is no hard and fast rules on what customs and traditions should be held on to or just dropped so as to attract or be inviting to outsiders, unchurched, or disaffected one time church goers. And I think head coverings would fall into this category.

Certainly an unsaved stranger would not find it comfortable among an assembly with all the women wearing a lace doily on their heads. We are to be relatable. The veil serves as a barrier.

An open hand, a loving welcome, and a friendly countenance and demeanor is what draws the unsaved in. It's the love and Spirit of Jesus working in and through us---not a tradition of dress...and not some man-made affectation of religion.

 

[Grant Melville]

Certainly an unsaved stranger would not find it comfortable among an assembly with all the women wearing a lace doily on their heads. We are to be relatable. The veil serves as a barrier.

An open hand, a loving welcome, and a friendly countenance and demeanor is what draws the unsaved in. It's the love and Spirit of Jesus working in and through us---not a tradition of dress...and not some man-made affectation of religion.

I think Euphemia and I lack common ground for this particular discussion, because we disagree about what the passage itself means. My position is that this commandment, from the Lord, through Paul, is intimately connected with God's glory. God's glory is timeless and unfading, therefore this commandment is unchanged. We have to understand the underlying truth before we appreciate why the commandment was given.

What @Big Moose has said is quite correct, we cannot endear ourselves to the world, we can't accomodate ourselves to its customs and ways at the cost of divine principles. The world has rejected our Lord and Saviour, and, because we're identified with Him, it rejects us too. We're outcasts, pilgrims, strangers in a foreign land. Are we really to be relatable to the worldly person, the unbeliever? "If the world hate you, know that it has hated me before you." says the Lord (John 15:18). "Do not wonder, brethren, if the world hate you.", writes John (1 John 3:13). The worldly person cannot relate to the believer, "for ye have died, and your life is hid with the Christ in God." (Colossians 3:3). They cannot understand where the source of our life is. They know that there's something different about the believer. They won't understand it, and they might find themselves reacting against it.

An open hand, a loving welcome, and a friendly countenance and demeanor is what we should present to everyone. There is no issue whatsoever for the believer in doing that while at the same time valuing divine principles and observing divine commandments. But, as the Lord says, "No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him..." (John 6:44). We have to remember that it isn't us that attracts people to the Saviour. It has to be a work of God. We prove attractive to the soul which is seeking salvation when we display features of Christ, formed in us by the Spirit. Again, as in everything, Jesus is the key, the cornerstone and the keystone. No matter how much we cultivate our manners and no matter what efforts we make to be hospitable, unless we're displaying features of Him, no-one will be attracted by our testimony. We see this very thing in the national churches of the UK. The Churches of England and Scotland have, in many places, surrendered much of divine principle and added much of the mind of man in an effort to appeal to masses. All these efforts have only resulted in dwindling congregations.

Also, the covering is not a veil. A woman's long hair is her veil ("But woman, if she have long hair, it is glory to her; for the long hair is given to her in lieu of a veil" - 1 Corinthians 11:15). The covering is a different thought, and it isn't primarily a consideration of modesty, and definitely not a form of separation. As the scripture clearly shows, it's to do with authority and headship.

 

[Major]

Yes God is the head, or originator of all things. Mankind as you say, in Christ, "is placed in a position to act in the capacity as 'the image and glory of God' as stated in verse #7." Yet in this case, Paul was merely addressing the cultural custom of head covering with regard to women who have become Christians and have been saved out of their paganism, where being bald was part of their persona as priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite, which was prevalent at that time.

Paul does go into the chronological order of Creation, with the male first and the female second. There was absolutely a chronological order in God's creation. In Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians 11:3, the word "kephale" meaning head is also the same word used for "origin, source". In other words, Christ is the origin/ source for every man; The man is the origin/source for the woman; God is the origin/source for Christ. There was no argument about Paul's discussion here, because the churches then did have women in leadership, and it was acceptable then, as it should be now.

Man and woman are equal partners, created in the image of God. Even God Himself is three equal persons...no hierarchy there. But there is no hierarchical order in the Church. Hierarchy is a man-made idea. Nowhere is the absolute principle of equality contradicted in scripture. Men are equal to women, all races are equal, all ethnicities, all levels of prosperity before God Almighty.

I agree but it is also Scriptural that there has to be someone who is the one responsible one. It is not a matter of equality but rather RESPONSIBILITY. Men and women are equal BUT they have different roles with in humanity and the family IMO.

God first created Adam and gave him the responsibility to work (dress) and keep the Garden. (Gen. 2:15) Genesis 2:18 says that God made Eve and she was created to be a "help meet" for man. Her position in reference to man is defined as first "a helper," literally, "a help," 'ézer." Adam in fulfilling his responsibilities in the Garden needed help and God gave that responsibility to Eve. If Adam was to achieve his God directed objectives in life, he needed the help of his mate. In the creation of Eve, God set forth His plan for the role of women. God's plan was Eve was to be at Adam's side and in every way, from having offspring to being Adam's partner and counterpart in carrying out his God given responsibilities. Eve was the needed part of Adam, making him complete in agreeing with him mentally, physically, spiritually. She was not made as an inferior being in any degree, but with a different and equally important role and purpose in life.http://bible-truth.org/Biblicalordermenwomen.html

The prophet Isaiah was condemning Israel in Isaiah 3:12, when he said they had allowed women to rule over them. In a church, according to God's word the Bible, no woman is qualified to be a pastor or a deacon or in any other leadership position over men. This is plainly stated in God's word. Now I know that you will object to that and you are welcome to do so but that is however exactly what the Bible says. I do not say that to argue the point, only that it is what the Bible says.

God never in any way degraded a woman, but made her of equal importance to the man. Man is not the woman's master, but rather her provider and leader. RESPONSIBILITY!!!

The President is the head of the nation therefore he is the one responsible for it.
The manager of Wallmart is the head of that operation so he is the one responsible for it.
The coach of the New York Yankess is the head of the team therefore he is responsible for it.
Christ is the head of the church so that makes Him the one responsible for it.
The husband is the head of the family so that makes him the one responsible for it.

 

[Euphemia]

I think Euphemia and I lack common ground for this particular discussion, because we disagree about what the passage itself means. My position is that this commandment, from the Lord, through Paul, is intimately connected with God's glory. God's glory is timeless and unfading, therefore this commandment is unchanged. We have to understand the underlying truth before we appreciate why the commandment was given.

What @Big Moose has said is quite correct, we cannot endear ourselves to the world, we can't accomodate ourselves to its customs and ways at the cost of divine principles. The world has rejected our Lord and Saviour, and, because we're identified with Him, it rejects us too. We're outcasts, pilgrims, strangers in a foreign land. Are we really to be relatable to the worldly person, the unbeliever? "If the world hate you, know that it has hated me before you." says the Lord (John 15:18). "Do not wonder, brethren, if the world hate you.", writes John (1 John 3:13). The worldly person cannot relate to the believer, "for ye have died, and your life is hid with the Christ in God." (Colossians 3:3). They cannot understand where the source of our life is. They know that there's something different about the believer. They won't understand it, and they might find themselves reacting against it.

An open hand, a loving welcome, and a friendly countenance and demeanor is what we should present to everyone. There is no issue whatsoever for the believer in doing that while at the same time valuing divine principles and observing divine commandments. But, as the Lord says, "No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him..." (John 6:44). We have to remember that it isn't us that attracts people to the Saviour. It has to be a work of God. We prove attractive to the soul which is seeking salvation when we display features of Christ, formed in us by the Spirit. Again, as in everything, Jesus is the key, the cornerstone and the keystone. No matter how much we cultivate our manners and no matter what efforts we make to be hospitable, unless we're displaying features of Him, no-one will be attracted by our testimony. We see this very thing in the national churches of the UK. The Churches of England and Scotland have, in many places, surrendered much of divine principle and added much of the mind of man in an effort to appeal to masses. All these efforts have only resulted in dwindling congregations.

Also, the covering is not a veil. A woman's long hair is her veil ("But woman, if she have long hair, it is glory to her; for the long hair is given to her in lieu of a veil" - 1 Corinthians 11:15). The covering is a different thought, and it isn't primarily a consideration of modesty, and definitely not a form of separation. As the scripture clearly shows, it's to do with authority and headship.

Our glory is found in Christ. Paul knew that, but He was instructing new believers coming into the churches who were bringing their remnant pagan ways in. The command to wear a headcovering is cultural, and not a timeless edict. We have NO SUCH tradition in the 21st century western culture.

 

[Euphemia]

I agree but it is also Scriptural that there has to be someone who is the one responsible one. It is not a matter of equality but rather RESPONSIBILITY. Men and women are equal BUT they have different roles with in humanity and the family IMO.

God first created Adam and gave him the responsibility to work (dress) and keep the Garden. (Gen. 2:15) Genesis 2:18 says that God made Eve and she was created to be a "help meet" for man. Her position in reference to man is defined as first "a helper," literally, "a help," 'ézer." Adam in fulfilling his responsibilities in the Garden needed help and God gave that responsibility to Eve. If Adam was to achieve his God directed objectives in life, he needed the help of his mate. In the creation of Eve, God set forth His plan for the role of women. God's plan was Eve was to be at Adam's side and in every way, from having offspring to being Adam's partner and counterpart in carrying out his God given responsibilities. Eve was the needed part of Adam, making him complete in agreeing with him mentally, physically, spiritually. She was not made as an inferior being in any degree, but with a different and equally important role and purpose in life.http://bible-truth.org/Biblicalordermenwomen.html

The prophet Isaiah was condemning Israel in Isaiah 3:12, when he said they had allowed women to rule over them. In a church, according to God's word the Bible, no woman is qualified to be a pastor or a deacon or in any other leadership position over men. This is plainly stated in God's word. Now I know that you will object to that and you are welcome to do so but that is however exactly what the Bible says. I do not say that to argue the point, only that it is what the Bible says.

God never in any way degraded a woman, but made her of equal importance to the man. Man is not the woman's master, but rather her provider and leader. RESPONSIBILITY!!!

The President is the head of the nation therefore he is the one responsible for it.
The manager of Wallmart is the head of that operation so he is the one responsible for it.
The coach of the New York Yankess is the head of the team therefore he is responsible for it.
Christ is the head of the church so that makes Him the one responsible for it.
The husband is the head of the family so that makes him the one responsible for it.

Eve was created as a help, "meet"---which means a person who is equal to the one that requires help. Both Adam and Eve worked together, shoulder to shoulder as co-leaders in the world. Sin changed that, but Christ in a life restores that.

 

[Major]

Eve was created as a help, "meet"---which means a person who is equal to the one that requires help. Both Adam and Eve worked together, shoulder to shoulder as co-leaders in the world. Sin changed that, but Christ in a life restores that.

And if you will read comment #54, that is exactly what I said.

But just to add to the conversation allow me to say that
It doesn't matter what we think or want or how we interpret the creation story in Genesis, either literally or figuratively; God's intentions for men and women are spelled out clearly for us and anything different is then what we want the Bible to say and NOT WHAT it actually does say.

God created the woman as a "helper" for the man! Absolutely.

The LORD God said on Genesis 2:18.....
"It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

However, being a "helper" does not imply that the woman was inferior or subservient to the man; the same Hebrew word, `ezer, translated as "helper," is used to describe God, Himself, in Psalms 33:20, & 70:5, & again in 115:9-11. In fact, God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation.

Gen. 2:27-28...........
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground".

Genesis 5:1-2...........
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

The punishments on both Adam and Eve because of their sin were clearly imposed by God Himself however, God did not reduce women to inferior status, nor did He command men to rule harshly over their wives. However, in the course of history, it has sometimes been thought that God's punishment of Eve was justification for degradation and subjugation of women.

Now when we come to the New Test. era, Paul affirmed the equality of all Christians. There was no difference based on birth, status or gender. All had the same privileges and blessings as children of God.

Gal. 3:26-29......
"You are ALL sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Now the same Bible we use to establish that men and women are equal then goes on to say this in Ephesians 5:21-23........

"Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. "

I stand by what I said and that was it is not about equality but responsibility. We can not use the Bible only when it is convenient to our cause and our thinking. We is use it and agree to what it reaches about what we like, we also must consider it when there is something it tells us that we do not like.

God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation. But, because of their disobedience, God punished Adam and Eve and evicted them from the Garden of Eden. Eve's punishment was to suffer pain in childbirth and be ruled over by her husband. That is what the Bible says.

So, the conversation should then be directed at those particular Scriptures and not at anyone individual.

 

[Lanolin]

I often wondered about this passage and still dont understand what they mean 'because of the angels' but I do wear coverings (not all the time) but I get a bit self concious cos these days hardly any women in church does it.

If I dont have a covering I just bow my head while praying. I am a hat person, if theres no hat I just pull my hoodie over. When I did wear a scarf/veil to church one christmas people said I looked like Mary. I think thats only in public though, in prayer closets you dont need to do this. In ladies bible study cos theres no men around its easier to pray. I suppose not just cos of submission but we have female things we want to talk to God about.

I find it really weird nowdays even in church they dont do it, when in the old days they did. (Wear head coverings) And in the workplace we never call people sir, or even teachers professor. We get taught to address people by their first names. Also people dont say 'christian name' anymore.

 

[Lanolin]

I think its about being modest..as well. Theres a passage talking about being adorned with pearls and costly array. Lots of women dye their hair and do all sorts of things to it to show it off. If you covering it that shows you not wanting to show it off.

But you dont want to go to the extreme of jewish orthodox who just wear wigs, shave off their real hair, or nuns in habits, or women wearing black burquas like muslims.

The queen always wears a headscarf or some hat when she goes to church and also, princesses always wear hats. So i dont see it as something horrible. Its a good thing.

 

[Euphemia]

I often wondered about this passage and still dont understand what they mean 'because of the angels' but I do wear coverings (not all the time) but I get a bit self concious cos these days hardly any women in church does it.

If I dont have a covering I just bow my head while praying. I am a hat person, if theres no hat I just pull my hoodie over. When I did wear a scarf/veil to church one christmas people said I looked like Mary. I think thats only in public though, in prayer closets you dont need to do this. In ladies bible study cos theres no men around its easier to pray. I suppose not just cos of submission but we have female things we want to talk to God about.

I find it really weird nowdays even in church they dont do it, when in the old days they did. (Wear head coverings) And in the workplace we never call people sir, or even teachers professor. We get taught to address people by their first names. Also people dont say 'christian name' anymore.

It's weird to do it today because it is not the custom of the day to wear head coverings, and Paul was admonishing the women to cover because it was the custom of that day. Adhering to a 2000 year old Palestinian custom of dress as a form of expressing one's religion is...well...religious.