Trend Toward Head Coverings for Women, 1 Cor 11.5

oops! I forgot to remove Anglican from my personal information.......I did put home church as Napanee Baptist Church, to which I have returned.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The truth is:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
1. Women are to bear children.
2. Women are to submit to their husbands who have the rule over them (headship)

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
3. The truth is that women should wear head-coverings in the church (headship).

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
4. The truth is that women should dress modestly.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman 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.
5. The truth is that women are to keep silence in the church.
6. The truth is that women are not permitted to have authority over a man, that is to teach, or pastor or be in a position of authority over a man--in the church.

So, that is just some of the truth of God's Word--only a small part of it.
You say it is a discouraging thread. I imagine it is when women rebel against the commands of God. It is always discouraging to be outside the will of God, especially when it is clearly revealed to you.
DHK

 

Isnt this horsie about dead already? We arent going to reconcile this issue.

 

RSR,, Now I know why I didn't change that one line that reads Anglican...........I can't find a space to change........but take pity, you know how unstudied and dumb I am.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Scarlett, sometimes you have to listen to the Bible where it says to dust off your shoes and move along....I dusted mine, and I am shuffling off to.........my study.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I was reading through the Matthew Henry commentary on Genesis 3 and found this section of a commentary interesting:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so."

It also spoke of sorrow being made up for by joy...for example, the pain of childbirth being forgotten by the blessing of the child.









[/FONT][/FONT]

 

I have read through the thread with interest -- even tried to make a post that must have went into web limbo land. I have a couple of comments and a few questions.

First, it seemed a "coincidence" yesterday to find our newspaper discussing Tony Blair (British prime minister) and Italy's prime minister opposing the Muslim wearing of veils in public.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-veil18oct18,1,4943106.story?coll=la-news-a_section
Second, Bro. Bob's comments about the millennium could have led off topic I suppose, but I think it is valid to consider the possibility that some people might dismiss the head covering because it is only found in one passage, while accepting a one thousand year long reign of Christ which time is only found in one passage (neither of these are found in "only one verse"; about fifteen in I Cor. 11 and seven in Rev. 20).

But to get to what I really want to ask:

1. What portions of the text of I Cor. 11:2-26 (and/or surrounding verses) indicate that Paul's teaching concerning the head covering is intended to be cultural?
2. If the teaching is cultural, what is its meaning for us today?
3. Is it applicable only to the Corinthians and only provides historical information for us in this day and time?
4. Is there a possibility that the practice is no longer valid, but the principle is?
5. If there is a valid applicable principle, what is it?

 

There is nothing wrong with womens rights, it is a womans equality or to be esteemed AS a man that is wrong.

Women have rights, look at Prov 31

She takes care of the home (ie. clothing, food)
She has authority consider for herself and to buy land
And to cultivate it as she sees fit
She uplifts her husband to all
He trusts her with everything knowing she can be trusted
She helps the those in need
She sells - Job - Helps with finances
Her words are wise and full of kindness
She is busy (concernig her home) and not idle (gossip)
She has good relationship with her family, testified by her family
She is a woman who fears/respects God which is why she (back to top of list)

They just are not in equality with the authority given man by God.

 

Thank God we are in the 21st century. I would not want to return to slavery even as it was in my time.

Cheers.

Jim

 

Is slavery unbiblical.

I wouldn't WANT to, but is it unbibical and if not is it wrong Jim?

 

There is no question that Paul tolerated slavery an even encouraged slaves to be content in their state.......

However, the words of Martin Luther King jr. "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, free at last!"

That is where I stand, and it includes the freedom of women.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Wow, I never knew women were slaves.

But I agree, We do not HAVE to have slaves. And I personally would fight for the right of a person.

But not equallity when the bible states men and women are not equal.

What I mean by that is a woman is not a man and those things that scripture states are charictoristics and postitions (specifically within the church and home) and for men and vise versa for women.

 

RL, seems the folks around BB don't like lists of questions. They ignored mine too.

 

Immediately after Paul gives instruction about women wearing head-coverings in verses 1-16 he begins a section from verse 17 onward on the Lord's Supper. It only makes sense that if the women wearing head converings is "a cultural thing" relegated to the first century, then so is the Lord's Supper.
I can't figure out the logic of some people who want to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they would choose to obey and the parts that they choose to reject.
DHK

 

If you can't tell the difference between a piece of cloth and the Lord's Supper, you are worse off than I thought.

Cheers,

Jim

 

But leaving the decision of what to do with "his" slave totally in the hand of his master.