homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: A sign of authority on her head (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: A sign of authority on her head
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A friend of mine, who has studied Biblical Greek (which I have not) said that, when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.

Is that true? Is this one of those expressions where no one else 2000 years ago ever said anything similar, so we don't really know? Or ... what?

Thanks!

[ 19. November 2013, 02:18: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's the first time I've come across that interpretation, Josephine - do you know if the passage your friend was referring to was the one in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16?

If it was that passage, at first glance it does seem as though Paul is emphasising man as the head of woman.

It would be worth exploring further, but I thought I should check first...

[ 28. July 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...edit here to amend link to cover full set of verses!!!

[ 28. July 2012, 20:20: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The relevant verse is 1 Cor 11:10. Trying to translate as word-for-word as is intelligible in English, I get:

quote:
For this reason, the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels/messengers.
On the basis of the Greek alone, either translation is possible.

Another interesting issue with this verse is with the word generally translated 'angels.' This translation has never made much sense to me (why do angels care about headwear?). The word could also be translated 'messengers,' which I find much easier to understand. The point might be this: messengers from other Christian communities where women do wear headwear when preaching (note that women preaching is unquestioned here) and are scandalized that in Corinth, women don't. The strong have the obligation to defer to the scruples of the weak, so Corinthian women should wear headwear to preach.

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, thank you, those are the verses I was referring to.

I hadn't thought about the ambiguity in the word angel -- that is something else to consider.

Thank you.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499

 - Posted      Profile for Anselm   Email Anselm   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.

From the brief summary that you have relayed, I would suggest that both a plain reading of the passage, and my understanding of the culture of the time, make this understanding of the passage unconvincing to me. But I would be open to hear more.

--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?

Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Could the angels be something to do with Paul's understanding of humanity's position under/above the Law? Elsewhere he talks of angels in relation to this subject and seems to be citing a slightly obscure rabbinical teaching about man being a 'little under the angels' and therefore subject to Law. But Christ has raised man above the angels to be free from the Law.

Thats all a bit garbled and may be of no relevance whatsoever, but maybe if we had the original rabbinical text (if thats what he is even quoting or referencing) the whole head scarf thing would make a lot more sense and we might also make sense of that reference to angels.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It helps to pull back a bit from the reference to authority and angels in 11:10 to the wider sweep of Paul's argument. As I read his letter, his intent is signalled in his introduction – that's where he sets out the main themes he wants to tackle by way of response to the issues he has been hearing about in the Corinthian Christian community.

So he kicks off with 1:2-9...
quote:
...to the God's community in Corinth, those made holy [above-the-norm / set apart] in [by virtue of being defined by loyalty to] the Messiah, Jesus, and thus called [appointed to the responsibility of remaining] holy, so that you are at one with all the others everywhere else who call on the name of [express their loyalty to] our master, the Messiah Jesus: their master and ours.

I am always thanking my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Messiah Jesus, because you were made rich by association with him in every way – both in all you say and know. The Messiah's witness is secure in you and therefore you have all the spiritual gifts you need as you wait for the revealing of our master, Messiah Jesus. He will secure you until the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our master, Messiah Jesus. God is faithful, by whom you were called into his son's community, Messiah Jesus, our master.

Key themes he will draw out from this include:

[1] Focus on Jesus as the God-appointed source and glue for this community. Paul uses this to counter the divisions occurring in Corinth, some around leadership/authority, some about lawsuits, others about community practice (e.g., at the Lord's Supper).

[2] Focus on remaining holy. This becomes important when practicing community discipline over those who are not reflecting God's glory.

[3] Focus on the power and responsibility they have, being full of spiritual gifts. Paul wants to make clear that the community's real power lies not in normal ways of thinking and speaking (worldly), but in a counter-intuitive gospel. It is fine to have the many gifts the community has, but there needs to be an order, a responsibility, in their use.


Reading Paul's introduction and then the rest of the letter in the light of that, perhaps these main themes could be summed up with the phrase: Show respect for all, especially those who are weaker in the faith.

If these themes are important for understanding the letter, then how do they impact on chapter 11?

Can I suggest that what Paul is doing there is drawing on creation imagery from Gen. 1-3 as background to his argument that there is a chronological sequence to creation: God (through Jesus) – man – woman. This is summed up by use of the word 'head' (kephale, = κεφαλη) in the sense of 'source.' Christ (with God) predated and was the source for man's creation, and then man predates and is the source for woman's creation, according to Gen. 2. This isn't the only time Paul draws on the historical-sequential sweep of Genesis to draw principles from which to base arguments (Romans is a much fuller treatment). Here, in Corinthians, he parallels the sequential order of source with the Gen. 1 principle of man/woman as a unit (11:11-12). Given the creation background to this section, I think the 'angels' in 11:10 is a passing reference to Gen. 3 – the cherubim placed as guards to the paradise garden of Eden.

The creation background works out as follows:-

Issue: the Jesus community in Corinth is divided. Despite having the attributes of a spiritual community, their practice is a bad witness. They are boasting that they can do what they want, when they want, how they want.

Resolution: Paul seeks to mitigate this issue by taking Gen. 3 (the 'fall') seriously. In other letters he is keen to spell out how Gen 1-2 impact on Christian life, bringing freedom and equal responsibilities. Here, however, he has to tackle the problem of taking that freedom down the wrong path. Yes, “everything is permissible” as the Corinthians say, but not everything is beneficial or constructive (6:12 and 10:23-24). In other words, Gen.1-2 has been tempered with Gen. 3 in Corinth. Paul has to say that for Corinth they have yet work to do to grow to the state where they can genuinely place themselves in 'Eden.' Only those 'pure in heart' (to coin a phrase) can pass the Cherubim, but for the time being there are those weak in the faith who have to grow, and that means those strong in the faith have to seek the good of others and voluntarily restrain their freedoms. This principle works itself out in the food sacrificed to idols issue in chapter 10.

Given that the Corinthian community is, at the moment, still outside Eden as far as practice is concerned, Paul recommends that both men and women in the community conform to cultural standards of the place and time by not drawing attention to their appearances. If Paul is referring to hair in the context of head-covering, then perhaps here we are in the realm of anthropological studies that refer to sexual license at the time: covered head indicated restricted sexuality. Absence of covering sent signals relating to undisciplined sexuality. Given the sexual issues in the community Paul has to address (chapters 5-7), this context does not seem far out of place.

A lot more could be said about this, but getting back to the point(!) I can see Paul stressing head-covering relating to authority as indicating a necessity – given the context of the time and place – to avoid a greater evil. The followers of Jesus in Corinth should be growing in their faith, using their undoubted spiritual gifts to stand on their own feet together in Christ. However, they are sending all the wrong signals to the rest of Corinth. As a result, Paul has to draw on Gen 1-3 to remind them that they cannot do what they want in Eden. They have a responsibility to creation and to others in the community to protect or tend them while they seek to embed the gospel in them. If that means women retaining or adopting the cultural mores that do not conflict with the gospel so that they retain authority (in terms of proper respect), then they need to do so. To do otherwise would open them up to disrespect, dishonour, and by extension would also sully the gospel and Jesus.

In all this, Paul urges his readers to follow his example as he follows that of Christ (4:16; 11:1). He becomes “all things to all men” (9:19-23).

In a sense, then, Josephine's friend has a point (if this is the point he or she was making). Yes, a woman's self-authority is an issue. However, Paul puts this in the context of sourcing: ultimately it is indeed God's authority that is at stake.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The relevant verse is 1 Cor 11:10. Trying to translate as word-for-word as is intelligible in English, I get:

quote:
For this reason, the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels/messengers.
On the basis of the Greek alone, either translation is possible.

Another interesting issue with this verse is with the word generally translated 'angels.' This translation has never made much sense to me (why do angels care about headwear?). The word could also be translated 'messengers,' which I find much easier to understand. The point might be this: messengers from other Christian communities where women do wear headwear when preaching (note that women preaching is unquestioned here) and are scandalized that in Corinth, women don't. The strong have the obligation to defer to the scruples of the weak, so Corinthian women should wear headwear to preach.

I've never heard this interpretation before, and it's quite interesting! I can see how (what is rendered in English as) "prophesy" could mean "preach;" what do you make of "pray" then? ISTM the traditional understanding would be what anyone in the church would be doing - participating in the liturgy, offering communal as well as personal prayers; hence, women attending church had to wear something on their heads in most denominations until quite recently*. But in recent centuries, those churches that required women to cover their heads in church were certainly NOT about to let a woman preach!

Also, if this is about preaching, why would women need to cover their heads and men would need to make sure they didn't? (Did Jewish men wear yarmulkes or similar in synagogues in Paul's day?)


*ETA: I grew up in a Pentecostal church, so "prophesying" would be done by people in the pews during a service, and I always assumed that was roughly what Paul had in mind - since he seems to talk about those kinds of spiritual gifts, and rules to practice those gifts in an orderly fashion in the assembly. What's the Greek word used here, and is it the same used in the sections of the book where he's talking about charismatic gifts, and/or preaching?

[ 30. July 2012, 05:46: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another reference to angels:

Matthew 18:10 NET
“See that you do not disdain one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

We need to remember that Christian ministry is highly word orientated, and these words have meaning against a particular context. In that scenario, there are certain roles that must be played out, even if they don't indicate the true nature of things.

1 Corinthians 11:12 NET
For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God.

Men are not superior to women, nor vice versa, but they need to maintain a situation of ”women live under the authority of men ” to illustrate the type of Christ and His bride.

If each of us has an angel in Heaven, they would have different rankings and different functions.

A woman's angel could have a lower ranking than a man's. Thus does not mean less worth, but different function.

[ 30. July 2012, 17:44: Message edited by: footwasher ]

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've heard a rather bizarre explanation that the reference to angels has to do with Genesis 6 (and Enoch 6). I don't remember why that was supposed to be relevant here, but I thought I should mention it just to show the wide range of interpretations that are brought to bear on this mysterious verse.

Since we can't be sure what it means, I doubt we should place a lot of weight on it. It may be something Paul's original audience got, but the angels are an unconvincing rationale for us today. They might be more convincing if we had any idea what the reference means, but we have to admit it's highly speculative.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Churchgeek

I understand your point, and I would not want to speculate beyond the available information.

What is available is that Jesus did not consider the children to be nonentities, as society and courts do: they had a high status in the kingdom because of their angels.

Similarly, women had a lesser ranking in the Kingdom, because of their angels.

I add a speculation that some parables and types lose their teaching value if roles become blurred. How can men love their wives the way Jesus loved the church, if there was no difference between the sexes?

Paul says there are no differences between the sexes in the Lord, ie. between fellowbelievers, but in the world, we present a different face.

To retain the effectiveness of the teachings. Hope that was not confusing!

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What is available is that Jesus did not consider the children to be nonentities, as society and courts do: they had a high status in the kingdom because of their angels.

Similarly, women had a lesser ranking in the Kingdom, because of their angels.

Because of their angels? That seems a bit of a stretch to me. I'm with churchgeek; i think we're probably missing a lot of cultural context that means we don't really get the passages you quoted earlier.

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
How can men love their wives the way Jesus loved the church, if there was no difference between the sexes?

Couldn't Paul simply be correcting the Ephesians, drawing each gender back from the different (but both off-track) directions they'd headed down? So the Christian husbands weren't loving their wives in the way Christ loves the church, and the Christian wives weren't submitting to their husbands as to the Lord.

On the submission point, the verse immediately before the wives and husbands section (it's Ephesians 5:21) states it plainly: 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Kevin, I'm not ignoring your other points, but concentrating on this, because it can help shed light on other issues.

Why did Jesus attach value to children because of the position their angels held in heaven?

I mean we don't know what the doctrine of angels comprised of, as taught by Jesus, but apparently, this comment has some bearing on the matter.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What is available is that Jesus did not consider the children to be nonentities, as society and courts do: they had a high status in the kingdom because of their angels.

Similarly, women had a lesser ranking in the Kingdom, because of their angels.

Because of their angels? That seems a bit of a stretch to me. I'm with churchgeek; i think we're probably missing a lot of cultural context that means we don't really get the passages you quoted earlier.

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
How can men love their wives the way Jesus loved the church, if there was no difference between the sexes?

Couldn't Paul simply be correcting the Ephesians, drawing each gender back from the different (but both off-track) directions they'd headed down? So the Christian husbands weren't loving their wives in the way Christ loves the church, and the Christian wives weren't submitting to their husbands as to the Lord.

On the submission point, the verse immediately before the wives and husbands section (it's Ephesians 5:21) states it plainly: 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.



[ 31. July 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: footwasher ]

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Why did Jesus attach value to children because of the position their angels held in heaven?

Like with what I said about Paul's comments regarding wives and husbands, couldn't it be that Jesus is simply correcting a misconception? So he says children's angels always see God's face; not that this makes those angels special, rather that they are just like adults' angels.

Putting aside what exactly it means for each person to have an angel, I think the passage might just be saying children are valuable to God just as adults are.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, they are not like adults. They are ranked higher. They are what adults should aspire to be :

Matthew 18:1-6 NET
At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So your argument, footwasher, seems to be as follows:

1. Jesus attached value to children because their angels see God's face.

2. Jesus told adults to become like children; therefore he's saying children are ranked higher than adults.

3. Combining 1 & 2, we can deduce that children's angels are ranked higher than adults' angels.

4. Paul says women should cover their heads because of "the angels."

5. Therefore, combining 1-4, women's angels must be of a lower rank than men's.

6. Therefore, women, though equal to men, must assume a role of lower rank than men.


First of all, I think you need to prove that everyone has an angel in heaven, and that their angel assumes a rank based on - what, the person's age and sex? - and that persons therefore need to assume a rank on earth that's roughly equivalent to that of their angel in heaven.

I can't see that teaching in Scripture, except if you cobble together the rather disparate texts you're using. It also doesn't seem clear from Scripture that angels are ranked by people's sex and age. (So if a child dies, his/her angel never gets demoted? Or do we get reassigned to lesser angels once we grow up?)

I see no reason to bring Jesus' statements about children to bear here, other than that you're finding the word "angels" in one passage, and, since it has the word "children" in it, you're looking to a different passage that also has the word "children." If that's how you want to play it, then note that Jesus speaks of "their angels," whereas Paul says "the angels." (Of course, I'm working with English translations here - maybe the Greek has technical terms for "the" and "their" that prove footwasher's point?)

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Footwasher - 'become like little children' in the sense, Jesus adds shortly afterwards, of being humble. Again, I think Jesus is correcting a misconception about who is great - as you say, people in Jesus' time didn't think much of children but Jesus corrected that view and showed that, in fact, adults can learn from children in some ways. Not that children are more valuable to God than adults.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I've heard a rather bizarre explanation that the reference to angels has to do with Genesis 6 (and Enoch 6). I don't remember why that was supposed to be relevant here, but I thought I should mention it just to show the wide range of interpretations that are brought to bear on this mysterious verse.

Since we can't be sure what it means, I doubt we should place a lot of weight on it. It may be something Paul's original audience got, but the angels are an unconvincing rationale for us today. They might be more convincing if we had any idea what the reference means, but we have to admit it's highly speculative.

Yes, I have heard something along those lines too. I'm pretty much out of time for today but if I get the chance over the next couple of days I'll try to regurgitate something.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"So your argument, footwasher, seems to be as follows:

1. Jesus attached value to children because their angels see God's face."

Yup.

"2. Jesus told adults to become like children; therefore he's saying children are ranked higher than adults."

Yup. Everything else being equal.

"3. Combining 1 & 2, we can deduce that children's angels are ranked higher than adults' angels."

Nope. Those who have not entered the kingdom do not have representation in heaven. An adult gets his angel in place when he becomes like a child.

Ephesians 2:6 NET
and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

"4. Paul says women should cover their heads because of 'the angels.'"

Yup.

"5. Therefore, combining 1-4, women's angels must be of a lower rank than men's."

Nope, different role. Jesus lays down His life for the church (comprising men and women) and men laying down their lives for their wives.

"6. Therefore, women, though equal to men, must assume a role of lower rank than men."

Nope. Women must provide an opportunity for men to lay down their lives for them:

Ephesians 5:25 NET
Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.

Ephesians 5:32 NET
This mystery is great – but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

"First of all, I think you need to prove that everyone has an angel in heaven, and that their angel assumes a rank based on - what, the person's age and sex? - and that persons therefore need to assume a rank on earth that's roughly equivalent to that of their angel in heaven."

Easy peasy. Children are to be treasured because they are innocent, which is what we will become, when we are in Christ.

I repeat:

children=innocent=valuable.

A woman play the role of a canvas upon which her husband's love is showcased, mirroring Christ's relationship to the church.

Women=opportunity = lesser role

Men play the role of protector, sacrificing themselves for their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for His Church.

Men=benefactor=higher role.

1 Corinthians 11:7 NET
For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

"I can't see that teaching in Scripture, except if you cobble together the rather disparate texts you're using. It also doesn't seem clear from Scripture that angels are ranked by people's sex and age. (So if a child dies, his/her angel never gets demoted?"

Yup.

"Or do we get reassigned to lesser angels once we grow up?)"

What do you think?

John 1:51 NET
He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

"I see no reason to bring Jesus' statements about children to bear here, other than that you're finding the word "angels" in one passage, and, since it has the word "children" in it, you're looking to a different passage that also has the word "children." If that's how you want to play it, then note that Jesus speaks of "their angels," whereas Paul says "the angels." (Of course, I'm working with English translations here - maybe the Greek has technical terms for "the" and "their" that prove footwasher's point?)"

Their angels: refers to specific angels.

The angels: refers to the ordered taxonomy of angels.

"Footwasher - 'become like little children' in the sense, Jesus adds shortly afterwards, of being humble. Again, I think Jesus is correcting a misconception about who is great - as you say, people in Jesus' time didn't think much of children but Jesus corrected that view and showed that, in fact, adults can learn from children in some ways. Not that children are more valuable to God than adults."

Innocence gets you into the Kingdom.

Humility gets you promoted.

Children have both.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[HOSTING]

We've been sticking to the idea of female authority without delving into the Dead Horse of women's ordination. Well done. But the last post very definitely introduces the Dead Horse of Headship, which I have hyper linked for your convenience if you wish do discuss it. I even bumped it for y'all.


As always, if you have any questions or compelling arguments to make, please take them to the Styx.

[/HOSTING]

Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host

[ 01. August 2012, 05:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Footwasher, I'm sorry but I can't make any headway in this discussion with you. It seems you're making so many points that I've just never considered before, and some of them you're stating as if they were obvious. Well, they're not obvious to me. Maybe you could post a couple of links to articles that explain the basics of your view? Give us some background to this? Because I'm really struggling at the moment!

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the relevant bit for this thread is to ask what angels are and what they mean in this text. Maybe other Scriptures mentioning angels might shed some light on that, maybe not.

I'll confess that I'm not convinced of the reality of angels (or demons, for that matter). They're too bound up in ancient mythologies which evolved quite a lot over time (an evolution that didn't end with the NT). In Scripture, their existence, roles, and nature tend to be assumed by the texts and the people in the texts (although there isn't consistency across all the books of the Bible), and that doesn't help us at all with this particular case.

Besides, if Paul's intent is to speak to divinely ordained roles (that's the closest I'm going to come to touching the dead horse), why would he be so round-about as to appeal to angels? He's already giving instructions about roles. I can see the appeal for a modern reader who has a schema worked out like footwasher has, because it would give Paul's teachings a sense of permanence, inscribing them into the divine order of the cosmos. But I'm not convinced that's what Paul means here.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:

"3. Combining 1 & 2, we can deduce that children's angels are ranked higher than adults' angels."

Nope. Those who have not entered the kingdom do not have representation in heaven. An adult gets his angel in place when he becomes like a child.

Ephesians 2:6 NET
and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

This is rather confused. Why would our "representation in heaven" be an angel, when we have but one High Priest, Jesus? Also, I don't see how Eph. 2.6 makes your point at all. It doesn't mention angels at all. Are you conflating angels and souls?

quote:

(So if a child dies, his/her angel never gets demoted?"

Yup.

"Or do we get reassigned to lesser angels once we grow up?)"

What do you think?

John 1:51 NET
He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

What do I think? I think John 1.51 refers to the dream Jacob had, where he saw angels descending and ascending on a "ladder" (probably a ziggurat). A ziggurat was supposed to connect heaven and earth, and the angels in Jacob's dream represented that heaven and earth were indeed connected in the place he thus called "House of God" (Beth-El).
Gen 28.11-19, text here.

Jesus' alluding to it tells us that JESUS is the link between heaven and earth, making God present with us.

But I have no idea why you seem to think the verse in John makes your point.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think the relevant bit for this thread is to ask what angels are and what they mean in this text. Maybe other Scriptures mentioning angels might shed some light on that, maybe not.

Yes, I think given Paul's penchant for deriving support for the gospel from the Jewish Scriptures, the answer most likely lies here. It's that gospel history - spelled out more fully in the Romans letter - that takes me to Genesis 1-3 for the most likely source of these angels.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I also would like to know - did Jewish men at that time wear anything on their heads in Synagogues? 'Cause Paul is saying in these verses that it's shameful for a man to pray or prophecy with his head covered.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are several ways of arriving at the answer, and it is a new direction, having nothing to do with tempting the angels (the Enoch angle) or indication of marriage (Grudem's take).

Lets assume that it was required for :
A. men to pray and prophesy with their head uncovered.

This equates with:
B. Proper (not shameful) conduct.

How do we make the leap from A to B?

By seeing the accompanying requirement.

C. Laying down of life

How does praying and prophesying bareheaded become a laying down of life?

Because that is what Christ did. When He ministered through word, it was to enlighten the disciples. When He ministered through deed, it was to teach by example. Both sacrificial because it was done without a headcovering, (incognito?), leading to His persecution and execution.

Core teaching

Love your fellow man.
Lay down your life.

Praying and prophesying is a sacrificial work:

Acts 7:53-60 NET
You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”
When they heard these things, they became furious and ground their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently toward heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” But they covered their ears, shouting out with a loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent. When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. They continued to stone Stephen while he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The gist then being that women should pray and prophecy with their heads covered, i.e., for them it's not sacrificial and they're doing it incognito? Things are getting more and more confusing in here.


BTW, nice turn of phrase with "the Enoch angle"! [Cool]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"The gist then being that women should pray and prophecy with their heads covered, i.e., for them it's not sacrificial and they're doing it incognito? Things are getting more and more confusing in here."

It shouldn't be, since it's a recurring motif.

"BTW, nice turn of phrase with 'the Enoch angle'!".

Glad you caught on to the wordplay. I get my pun fix where I can, even places I didn't sow.

If you catch a glimpse of the view, it would be nice. Else I'll launch from another direction. Believe me, it makes sense. The good thing is that you get to use ALL the evidence.

Remember, the best solution is the comprehensive one. Ask Holmes. He worried about the dog that didn't bark on the night.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And in India in the churches we women normally cover our heads, and so do we in some specific churches in Scotland. So we are told it's important and what God wishes.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068

 - Posted      Profile for Pine Marten   Email Pine Marten   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is an interesting thread but I'm getting as confused as churchgeek - footwasher, could you possibly do quotes properly, so that your posts are easier to read? Thanks very much.

--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde

Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But WHY is female headgear important to God? (I don't believe it is, by the way.) So far I've not seen any compelling argument for this point, including whatever it is that Footwasher is trying to communicate, that makes no sense whatsoever to me, and apparently to others as well.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But WHY is female headgear important to God? (I don't believe it is, by the way.)

I read an interesting article a few years ago that explained the strange ideas of sex from that time (as opposed to the strange ideas of sex from our time.) Apparently in Roman times, women's hair was seen as a sex organ of some sort, so it was viewed as impious for a woman to leave her head uncovered in worship -- kind of like a man exposing himself might be seen as a tad OTT during worship today. As I recall, the article was in a respectable publication, but it is kind of a hazy memory. Perhaps another shipmate may recall it or know to what the author was referring.

--Tom Clune

[ 02. August 2012, 14:06: Message edited by: tclune ]

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And in India in the churches we women normally cover our heads, and so do we in some specific churches in Scotland. So we are told it's important and what God wishes.

Good point Daisymay, which I was about to bring up. You also know that widows in India are required to shave their head.

1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved.
1Co 11:6 So if a woman does not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it is a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her own head.


Okay let's see how we can approach an understanding from a different direction.

Paul is concerned that men and women showcase Christ's relationship with the Church in their ministry.

What did Christ do? He laid down His life for the church.

Why did He do it? Because God promised to rescue the world unconditionally in His promise to Abraham.

Because God could show His love through sacrifice.

Because God could save, heal, so He could be appreciated, not for what He did, but for what He WAS.

Interestingly, God will CREATE opportunities to showcase His goodness.


John 9:3 "Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but
it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

A man's ministry mirrors God's/Christ's action. A woman's ministry mirrors the role of the beneficiary, humans/the church.

1 Co 11:7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Men who keep their hair long show they are noncombatants. Women who leave their hair long show they are leaving the job of protection to the men. Women who shave their head show they are now unprotected, need to take their own defensive measures.

Clear as mud?

Wait till we examine God, Abraham and Isaaac...

Pine Marten, I've dusted off my laptop and fired it up. Android is fast, easy to keep on all the time and quick to boot up, but leaves a lot to be desired in the text handling area.

[ 02. August 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: footwasher ]

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Men who keep their hair long show they are noncombatants. Women who leave their hair long show they are leaving the job of protection to the men. Women who shave their head show they are now unprotected, need to take their own defensive measures.

Or women in Corinth who left their hair long / uncovered / untied were very likely to be prostitutes so when the Christian women did this, other people thought they were prostitutes. That's a common interpretation, isn't it; one that hasn't been discredited by more recent historical / archaeological investigation?

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Men who keep their hair long show they are noncombatants. Women who leave their hair long show they are leaving the job of protection to the men. Women who shave their head show they are now unprotected, need to take their own defensive measures.

Or women in Corinth who left their hair long / uncovered / untied were very likely to be prostitutes so when the Christian women did this, other people thought they were prostitutes. That's a common interpretation, isn't it; one that hasn't been discredited by more recent historical / archaeological investigation?
I think my explanation covers the issue of shaven heads.

Comprehensive, comprehensive, comprehensive...

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068

 - Posted      Profile for Pine Marten   Email Pine Marten   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
footwasher, thank you for tidying up the quotes in your posts, it is much appreciated by an aged old bag like me.

However, I am still finding it difficult to follow your argument. But please continue and maybe we will find common ground.

--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde

Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
footwasher, thank you for tidying up the quotes in your posts, it is much appreciated by an aged old bag like me.

However, I am still finding it difficult to follow your argument. But please continue and maybe we will find common ground.

Sure, Pine Marten, let's do just that. An area of confusion is Paul's use of the word "head". I tend to see patterns, so I think I can wrap my mind around these idea jumps better. Oooh, 1 John is a doozy, in that respect!

1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head,

Paraphase
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors (his head=God),

The man is supposed to be showcasing God, and he's wearing a mask? God is speaking, reasoning, taking a risk of rejection and He is confident that His words will pass the test, that He will be justified when He is judged. He isn't a phantom scribbler, an anonymous graffiti artist: He speaks in the Temple, during the day. And He wants His day in court, even a kangaroo court.

1Co 11:5 and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having herhusband head shaved.
1Co 11:6 So if a woman does not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it is a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her own head.


The woman prays and does it bare headed? She is doing the rescuing, self protecting? Well she may be enacting something, but it isn't the church. Paul says he is talking about church contexts, not marital relations. If she rebels, she dishonours what her husband REPRESENTS. Tantamount to considering him DEAD.

Sometimes I wonder how we are supposed to untangle these texts, seeing the diverse experience required (Daisymay and I, here), but I suppose that's why we are told not to neglect watering the gathering of the saints. There might just be someone who has access to the relevant information. To contribute AND to correct...

[ 02. August 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: footwasher ]

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A friend of mine, who has studied Biblical Greek (which I have not) said that, when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.

It is an interpretation that I've come across and found plausible and defended on occasion. I don't know a lot about Biblical Greek, but whenever in English you say someone is wearing a sign of authority you mean that the sign is a sign of the authority of the person wearing it; the sign is not of someone else's authority over them. What you want to signal with a sign is the person who has the authority; not the person over whom authority is had.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A friend of mine, who has studied Biblical Greek (which I have not) said that, when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.

It is an interpretation that I've come across and found plausible and defended on occasion. I don't know a lot about Biblical Greek, but whenever in English you say someone is wearing a sign of authority you mean that the sign is a sign of the authority of the person wearing it; the sign is not of someone else's authority over them. What you want to signal with a sign is the person who has the authority; not the person over whom authority is had.
It does lead to the question, though, why a man "dishonors his head" if he does the same. Shouldn't every person in authority have the same sign of that authority? Or does this have to do with the prevalent gender roles/stereotypes of the time - maybe men were always allowed/expected to be in those roles, but women weren't, so if they were, they needed some marker to show the church wasn't just being unruly and letting anyone get up and speak?

I'd still like to know if Jewish men would have worn a yarmulke or anything like it back then when they were in synagogues.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What a poor finish:

When the gospels are read carefully with these ideas in mind, they are fairly unambiguous. Jesus thought God's primary overriding concern was for the Israelites to love others. Since the economic crisis of the time had caused widespread poverty, the primary manifestation of that love ought to be helping the poor. Jesus did not share the Pharisees' belief that Israelites needed to hold fast to their God-given ancestral customs. He took the view that most of those customs were not God-given at all, and he was particularly concerned that many of those customs only served to make the plight of the poor and needy more difficult. So he thought the Pharisees were focusing entirely on the wrong things - putting all their efforts into trying to get Israelites to follow meaningless customs when they should have been working to build loving communities who aided the poor and the needy. Equally, Jesus felt the Temple system was being used to extort money from people, and in particular from those who could not afford to pay. While other Israelites saw the Temple as the center of their religion, Jesus believed God would act in judgment against it.

After starting out so well:

Richard Hays and others have recently done helpful work on the nature of narratives, and pointed out that when reading the bible we need to be one the look out for this sort of thing. Paul in particular seems to be a prime candidate for this. Paul (presumably) knows the story of Christ's life, his teachings, his conflicts with the Jewish authorities, his miracles and healings, his execution, resurrection, and the political fallout of this on the Christians and the other Jews. Yet Paul doesn't seem to mention much of the story of Christ's life. This can be explained because it was a shared narrative between himself and his readers. Shared narratives does not need to be repeated but are referred to it using synecdoche/metonymy - single words or short phrases that stand in for the entire narrative. (Hays suggests, for example, that the phrase "faithfulness of Christ" acts in such a way, and I agree)

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=016661

Anyone still having doubts that the role of the men was to go on the offensive, and that of the women was to be the body under protection?

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068

 - Posted      Profile for Pine Marten   Email Pine Marten   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This website has some answers about 1st century practice from a Messianic Jewish point of view.

ETA: in answer to churchgeek.

[ 04. August 2012, 09:34: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]

--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde

Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
This website has some answers about 1st century practice from a Messianic Jewish point of view.

ETA: in answer to churchgeek.

Excellent point about the covering being a veil.

Stephen: "You did not obey Torah, instruction!"

What was Torah?
For Adam, it was just 1 instruction.

For the Children of Israel, 613 instructions.

For Jesus, 2 instructions.

Love God with all that is in you, love your fellow man as you love yourself.

Listed in ascending order of difficulty.

Result. The Kingdom of God would be ushered in. Darkness would be dispersed.

Why did the first two sons of God fail.

They disbelieved God.

They changed the instructions. Adam changed the words of God regarding the result of disobeying, and believed the serpent regarding God's motive.

Israel changed the scope, reducing the requirements, cherrypicking the rules, watering down the consequences. They taught that any identification, even bare circumcision was sufficient.

What then should they have done? They should have believed God . Success is not demanded. Belief is. One should believe God requires obedience. And God gives the means to obey.

If Adam had believed God, the battle with temptation, weak resolve would have been won, the darkness would have dispersed. If Israel had believed God required them to enter Canaan, and that He would provide the strength, He would have fought for them, blessed them and the neighbouring nations would have repented and returned to God. Then the darkness would have dispersed.

When Jesus obeyed, He took a risk, and God vindicated Him. The words He spoke made sense, because God gave Him the words to speak. They became words that gave life. His words persisted. His enemies were defeated. His church was nourished.

When Stephen spoke, his words gave life. A seed was sown in Paul's mind. God took on Stephen's life. He fought for him. You could say Stephen had the same unity with God that Jesus had. Was it Stephen speaking or God? You couldn't tell. They were in synch.

Even though Stephen died, he still lives. We aren't just bags of flesh, we are persons, with beliefs, feelings. Stephen's words remain with us. He lives on in them, even though they are God's Words in the book of Life, it has our name as co author. And God is not a God of the dead, but of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of living people. What we believe counts, it's what differentiates us from the world,from cattle. Inasmuch as what we believe is the same stuff that God teaches, we walk in the same light and the blood of Jesus cleanses us of the difference.

What is the cross? It is laying down one's life. Unless a seed dies, it cannot live. Unless one sets aside ego, own will, one cannot unite with God. Not our will, but His will. This is what obeying God involves. This is what the men in the church taught. This is what Jesus taught.Against the Jews and the Greeks. This is what led to their death. This is how they lay down their life for the church, so that it would not have to sacrifice. This is how the church is preserved and nurtured and washed. God fights for the church. God lives through his witnesses in the church. You can't have a masked witness. Not if your testimony is that you have to lay down your life to live, to model it for your people, to model it for the world. Not if you tell the world that Christ is the husband who gave Himself for His church.

Before the cross, those who believed God were crushed by the law (the publican in the temple). They were held prisoner until Christ came. After the Cross, those who believed God were enveloped in Christ, sharing His empowerment, fulfilling the work that remains to be done, sharing in His suffering and vindication.

Thus the least in the kingdom of God is greater than the greatest before John was born.

Any aspect I didn't cover? Or, too much information? !

Hebrews 8:5 NET
The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.”

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
This website has some answers about 1st century practice from a Messianic Jewish point of view.

ETA: in answer to churchgeek.

Thank you, that's quite helpful!

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is not an original thought, but it may be relevant to the current discussion:

Roman (male) priests did invariably perform their religious duties capite velato, "with head covered."

A flamen wore a particular kind of hat called an apex as a sign of his office. A flamen wearing an apex is shown in the picture accompanying the referenced Wikipedia article.

An augur covered his head with a fold of his toga while taking the auspices, as did a priest offering sacrifice.

Augustus Caesar, represented as pontifex maximus, is shown with his head covered in this way in the portrait statue known as the Via Labicana Augustus.

In the context of ancient Corinth, then, Christian men who did not cover their heads when they prayed would be visibly differentiating themselves from the priests who carried out the rituals of Imperial Rome.

Roman priestesses also veiled their heads while performing their religious duties. But the practice of covering one's head was not so closely associated with religion, if one was a woman.

As I understand it, women of status in the ancient world generally wore a head covering of some kind on most occasions that took them out of the home. Head coverings were worn for the sake of propriety (as, many years ago, I was taught to wear white gloves and a hat for daytime public occasions). On the other hand, slaves and working women would probably not be wearing head coverings, which would mark them out as low-status women and make them vulnerable to sexual harassment and insults in the streets.

Paul could be offering the opinion that women should continue to wear head coverings, so that they might observe the proprieties while in church, and avoid harassment and insults on the way there and back. It's a reasonable and humane solution, of a piece with other examples of his pragmatic approach to Church government.

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even as a child in CofScotland, I always was wearing a hat in church and to Sunday School, along with all the other girls. Nowadays that is not demanded, not often used. And that means that a man who has a hat can now wear it for comfort or making sure he doesn't lose it by taking it off.

So people don't now think it's "spiritual" to wear something on your head to develop you and show your strength.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Paul gave praying and prophesying the status of a sacrament.

1 Corinthians 11:16 NET
16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.


Sacrament: the external manifestation of an internal act of grace.

Communion is a depiction of a work God did.

Public prophesying, testifying, is what Jesus did, for which He was executed. But His testimony cleansed His church.

You could say His sacrifice saved His Church. His Church did not save itself.

God did not allow Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Saving His people, being a vessel through which the world would be blessing, is God's job. It's the setting for the showcasing of His love.

The church is the setting for the showcasing of God's love.

Men and women depict the work of God by enacting the roles of benefactor and beneficiary.

Mankind is the glory of God, the setting in which God's love is manifested. Women are the glory of men, the setting in which the love of men can be manifested, in the sacrificial laying down of life, martyrdom to 'save' them. The Israeli army is proud of the contribution its womenfolk has made to the defense of the country. But attrition was demoralising. It has now become mandatory to restrict women from serving on the front line and areas where direct contact with enemy forces are expected. I understand a similar ruling is being promoted in several progressive countries with troops on active duty.

1 Corinthians 11:7 NET
7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.


The man who testifies represents God's Chosen, is IN Christ. It's Christ who speaks. Christ speaks without a veil. Its the only way He can make Himself a target. Which He needs to do if He is to make the necessary sacrifice. Which He professes. The testimony that God dies for His Church.


The woman who testifies represents God's Church, His Called, is IN man. Its those whom He called who hear. God desires none should perish, but all should be saved. Requiring Him to provide the Lamb. Her words are a confession, but they confess that the One making the sacrifice is God. Her protection against being targeted is the veil. The only way the Church can be targeted is if it is wiped out. Which means identifying its members. Those who confess. Without a veil. Which is impossible. Because, then the sacrifice is from man. Which is not the Church's confession.

Bottom line, the Church sends a message. Not just with words, but its actions, its sacraments.

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068

 - Posted      Profile for Pine Marten   Email Pine Marten   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry, but I'm starting to glaze over now.

--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde

Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I'm sorry, but I'm starting to glaze over now.

I guess I'm saying that the Church makes a statement with women's ministry when they wear a veil while testifying.

As it does with Communion, Baptism.

I think it lost a good testimony in the name of labelling the practice an anachronism.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Footwasher:
quote:
I'm saying that the Church makes a statement with women's ministry when they wear a veil while testifying.
I'm sure it does. Whether that's the statement you think it's making is another matter...

OK. Let's see if I've understood you: You're arguing that men represent Christ and women represent the church. Christ always puts himself at risk, but the church always has to be protected. As a sign of being protected, women wear veils and as a sign of being vulnerable men don't.

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools