Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Albert David

Holy Bible says Women must cover head and wear veil.

Recommended Posts

Holy Bible says Women must cover head and wear veil.

and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. [Genesis 24.65]

 

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. [1 Corinthians 11.6]

 

but every wife who prays or gprophesies hwith her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1 Corinthians 11:5]

 

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [1 Corinthians 11:13]

 

And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her head disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head has been shaved. 6If the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head. [GNB 1 Corinthians 11:5 & 6]

 

but every wife2 who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1 Corinthians 11:5]

 

But any woman who prays or prophesies without something on her head brings shame to her head. In fact, she may as well shave her head. [CEVIK Corinthians 11.5]

 

And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved. [AMP 1 Corinthians 11.5]

 

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. [NASB 1 Corinthians 11.5]

 

but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [ESV 1 Corinthians 11.5]

 

or if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. [NASB 1 Corinthians 11.6]

 

For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head]. [AMP 1 Corinthians 11.6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy Bible says Women must cover head and wear veil.

and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. [Genesis 24.65]

 

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. [1 Corinthians 11.6]

 

but every wife who prays or gprophesies hwith her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1 Corinthians 11:5]

 

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [1 Corinthians 11:13]

 

And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her head disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head has been shaved. 6If the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head. [GNB 1 Corinthians 11:5 & 6]

 

but every wife2 who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1 Corinthians 11:5]

 

But any woman who prays or prophesies without something on her head brings shame to her head. In fact, she may as well shave her head. [CEVIK Corinthians 11.5]

 

And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved. [AMP 1 Corinthians 11.5]

 

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. [NASB 1 Corinthians 11.5]

 

but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [ESV 1 Corinthians 11.5]

 

or if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. [NASB 1 Corinthians 11.6]

 

For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head]. [AMP 1 Corinthians 11.6] http://professionalcomputersolutions...ion.htm#h-29.0

No where in Scripture are woman commanded to wear veils. The fact is you cannot cite one verse that does. In regard to head covering, Paul is very specific, while praying or prophesying. Edited by Origen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No where in Scripture are woman commanded to wear veils. In regard to head covering, Paul is very specific, while praying or prophesying. I disagree with you

 

See the following verse.

 

and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. [Genesis 24.65]

 

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. [1 Corinthians 11.6]

 

but every wife who prays or gprophesies hwith her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1 Corinthians 11:5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this might have had more to do with the customs of the day that existed back then. From what I have read, prostitutes had their heads shaved , and this was probably due to lice or fleas that would be in their hair. So this had more to do with whether a woman was a prostitute, or even just looked like she was one, or not.

Many of the regulations that made sense back in that time period would not apply to us nowadays. For instance, a woman being unclean and having to live separately during her period. In those days, nothing was really known about germs, or uncleanliness, so laying out specific guidelines to keep the people clean and healthy was a necessary thing. Telling them about washing after touching something dead, and breaking pottery that could not be purified were all things that kept God's people healthier than the heather people around them, who practiced none of these things.

Now, we understand about germs spreading disease; so we keep ourselves clean, even though we do not isolate people like the scripture said to do back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with you

 

and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself.
That is not a command to wear a veil. It is simply a statement about an event not an imperative.

 

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. but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Again, nothing about a veil there. Also you misunderstand the context for verse 6 which refutes your claim.

 

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.
When you leave out the context and reverse the verses, as you have, it becomes clear how and why you got it wrong. You also missed the fact that Paul is addressing a church setting.

 

Also you have to do show us an imperative\a command concerning wearing a veil. You have not done so yet. The reason being there are none. Moreover Paul does not state women are to wear head covering all the time, everywhere. He says when she prays or prophesies. That's it.

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No where in Scripture are woman commanded to wear veils. In regard to head covering, Paul is very specific, while praying or prophesying. I disagree with you

 

See the following verse.

 

and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. [Genesis 24.65]

 

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. [1 Corinthians 11.6]

 

but every wife who prays or gprophesies hwith her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1 Corinthians 11:5]

 

 

Well it’s obvious this is a straight outta context, example. Both examples are from the cultures of the day. Paul later explains his position on the matter of a woman covering herself in the certain activities in the fallowing: 1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? And continues with examples of what would be culturally shameful in the day. Which isn’t shameful in many cultures today but yet is, in some cultures. It’s no secret that Paul’s statement of “when in Rome” applies in many of his writings, because, like this posting, he ran into the same desires to torment others with their own wishes to condemn others.

 

In today’s USA culture, it would be inappropriate for a woman to wear a bikini and go to the front of a church and pray. In today’s culture being covered is still required for appropriate activities.

 

To go back to the cultures of Paul’s day, it wasn’t shameful for Jewish or rabbinical men to have long hair and or beards. But roman men were shaved and short haired because men were warriors and it is advantages to be short haired and shaved in hand to hand combat. Hence then becomes a cultural norm in the population. US military requires the same except Navy for beards of which hand to hand isn’t an expectation. After WWII USA men were expected to be shaven and short haired. And in the 60’s the long haired male was a rebellion to that to the point that is was widely accepted culturally to have long hair, but it toke a decade or two to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels" (v11)

 

The "covering" they should have is to be under authority ... a man should be leading the meeting. this is not a temporary 1st Century cultural thing.

 

See also 1 Tim. 2:12-14

 

"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

 

Then back in 1 Corinthians 11 it says:

"if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (v16)

 

i.e. there is no custom to wear head covering / hats or not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels" (v11)

 

The "covering" they should have is to be under authority ... a man should be leading the meeting. this is not a temporary 1st Century cultural thing.

 

See also 1 Tim. 2:12-14

 

"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

 

Then back in 1 Corinthians 11 it says:

"if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (v16)

 

i.e. there is no custom to wear head covering / hats or not.

 

Covered by authority, as the church is structured to be in this case, such as Paul's "suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" is one thing, and attire that would have been appropriate at that time and place is another, what's your point?

 

Something that has been built such as the organizational integrity of the church, need no change, it accommodates the purpose it's been established for. What attire is appropriate changes from time to time and culture to culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Covered by authority, as the church is structured to be in this case, such as Paul's "suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" is one thing, and attire that would have been appropriate at that time and place is another, what's your point?
My point is that to have one's head "covered means to be under authority, see also v3:

"I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God"

 

It's not about the wearing of physical veils or hats.

 

Obviously men and women should dress in a way that doesn't distract or draw attention to them as that's notr what Christian meetings are supposed to be about, but Paul isn't making that point here.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that to have one's head "covered means to be under authority, see also v3:

"I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God"

 

It's not about the wearing of physical veils or hats.

 

Obviously men and women should dress in a way that doesn't distract or draw attention to them as that's notr what Christian meetings are supposed to be about, but Paul isn't making that point here.

 

 

 

well in 1Cor 11:5 & 6 Paul does mention attire doesn't he? and that is what the Albert David is talking about isn't he?

 

 

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

1Co 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well in 1Cor 11:5 & 6 Paul does mention attire doesn't he? and that is what the Albert David is talking about isn't he?

 

G'day Martin, and others.

 

I believe the woman should not dishonor her head. It was cultural though that men had short or close cut hair, and other commentators suggest women Temple prostitutes shaved at least one side of their head. A woman shaving her head at that time communicates a desire to change sexes, whether gender roles etc, that declares superiority which God had conferred to the male.

 

Furthermore, this is still common within our culture today. As lesbians are stereotypically known to either cut their hair in a masculine manner or shave at least one if not both sides of their head.

 

I personally do not see how these verses do not pertain to us today. In the church of Corinth, like today, women struggle for headship over the man. This was probably the fault of prophetesses in the church of Corinth. The Corinthian church was doing a thing which the cultural age took upon themselves as superior, and therefore made an implicit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonor her head because this kinda behavior dishonors God.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well in 1Cor 11:5 & 6 Paul does mention attire doesn't he? and that is what the Albert David is talking about isn't he?

 

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

1Co 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.

 

Yes, Paul reasons from the natural realm ("that is even all one as if") to make a spiritual point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, Watcher

 

I’m not trying to say you guys are incorrect in the understanding you convey, in ref to the text at hand. But it’s common for some to look for reasons to dominate others and the justification thereof, of which is common as dirt in the ranks amongst church goers. Which is why I insisted to stay on point with what the OP was talking about, which again seemed to be headed to some kind of fishing expedition for justification in the subjection of others.

 

That said let’s look at the gender question in this case.

 

The Lord says:

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

 

 

Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

Also Paul says:

 

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Therefore, as has been pointed to, the “spiritual” view.

 

Though it’s not specifically stated one can infer that there is no gender in the Kingdom of Heaven. But in the earth where we dwell, there is. Therefore, when addressing anything created or established, how the Lord our God established it is good. Hence people like Paul conveying that reasoning in many of the cases dealt with, that is outside of one’s relationship with the Lord.

Therefore, God’s People honor what God has made and how He made it, to honor their God, not to demoralize others in subjection. The same concept was executed during the time Jesus walked with His People Israel, when it came to just what the Sabbath day was supposed to be about.

Mar 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

It’s the same human nature to justify domination of another, using deliberately misinterpreted religious concepts.

So actually, the woman’s status in the church has nothing to do with spiritual, but has everything to do with the honoring God’s creation as He made it, and establish mankind in the earth. We forget why we exist, God the Father is in Heaven on the Throne but the earth is His foot stool hence where is His place in the earth? We are supposed to be in His place in the earth note just who Adam was:

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Just what did Jesus restore and just what was lost with Adam? And didn’t Jesus continually say things to the effect that He and the Father are One and He was in the Father and the Father was in Him, so on and so forth? We are given that place, and what was lost was restore to the Father. The bible has always been about God’s relationship with those He has chosen to be Present with, because man is to be the dwelling of God in the earth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not trying to say you guys are incorrect in the understanding you convey, in ref to the text at hand. But it’s common for some to look for reasons to dominate others and the justification thereof, of which is common as dirt in the ranks amongst church goers. Which is why I insisted to stay on point with what the OP was talking about, which again seemed to be headed to some kind of fishing expedition for justification in the subjection of others.

 

Hi Martin,

 

I didn't think you were saying any of us were incorrect. I posted my reply in relation to your supplied verses. There should be no struggle among men and women in the church, though this is a fallen world and you're bound to find contention ever since the curse:

  • Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

I'm sure if someone disagrees with all the above Scriptures mentioned in this thread in favor of some form of egalitarianism, others will find that it is best to address the "desire" in Genesis 3:16 as the root cause of contention. Perhaps, someone like @Origen could chime in here, and address not only the woman's "desire" but also the recent change of the ESV's "contrary" desire to the man's headship.

 

The word "contrary" chosen by the ESV translation committee—inherently implies a movement away from or opposite to something. The woman has a disposition to move in the opposite direction of what is expected of her. This change better conveys the direction of movement which was said "toward" someone or something.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William

 

Well in the (KJV) it states

Gen 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.

 

Also maybe one should understand what is meant by this, when the Lord spoke in like manner in;

 

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

Simply one has worldly authority over the other, by virtue of birth right in these cases. Could be first come first to receive what is there to have. Adam was first therefore the recipient of what was there to have, therefore Eve must come to Adam for whatever is necessary within what Adam had. hence she must come to him for, not the other way around. Even in the case with Jacob and Esau, technically Esau surrendered his birthright for the lentil. Therefore, Jacob by virtue of that agreement had right to the birthright Esau had by virtue of being first.

 

Therefore, an agreement can supersede birth right in the world. But he who is in agreement with the Lord God via Jesus Christ walks accordingly in the instructions given.

 

Side note:

Though I can respect an intended “word for word” translation (ESV). I prefer KJV because one can see what words being used in the translation meant at the time of the translation via the full volumed OED which has the full known history of the English language by the owners of the English language, combined with the test of time of over 400 yrs. of public scrutiny. Whereas Americans are users of the English language and that use, is subject to change from year to year.

 

Oh yea, congrats on your new position of Admin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Side note:

Though I can respect an intended “word for word” translation (ESV). I prefer KJV because one can see what words being used in the translation meant at the time of the translation via the full volumed OED which has the full known history of the English language by the owners of the English language, combined with the test of time of over 400 yrs. of public scrutiny. Whereas Americans are users of the English language and that use, is subject to change from year to year.

The sentence "your desire shall be to your husband" is a verbless clause. Literally the text reads: "and to your husband your desire." The debate revolves around three points. First, the meaning of preposition אֶל (i.e. to), second the meaning of the word תְּשׁוּקָה (i.e. desire), and third how both of those relate to the context. Edited by Origen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
William

 

Well in the (KJV) it states

Gen 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.

 

Also maybe one should understand what is meant by this, when the Lord spoke in like manner in;

 

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

Simply one has worldly authority over the other, by virtue of birth right in these cases. Could be first come first to receive what is there to have. Adam was first therefore the recipient of what was there to have, therefore Eve must come to Adam for whatever is necessary within what Adam had. hence she must come to him for, not the other way around. Even in the case with Jacob and Esau, technically Esau surrendered his birthright for the lentil. Therefore, Jacob by virtue of that agreement had right to the birthright Esau had by virtue of being first.

 

Therefore, an agreement can supersede birth right in the world. But he who is in agreement with the Lord God via Jesus Christ walks accordingly in the instructions given.

 

Side note:

Though I can respect an intended “word for word” translation (ESV). I prefer KJV because one can see what words being used in the translation meant at the time of the translation via the full volumed OED which has the full known history of the English language by the owners of the English language, combined with the test of time of over 400 yrs. of public scrutiny. Whereas Americans are users of the English language and that use, is subject to change from year to year.

 

Oh yea, congrats on your new position of Admin.

 

Hello Martin,

 

I am a little confused about how your commentary relates to a birthright of Adam over Eve. Though, I think I may be being more critical of your point, but lemme share what I think on the subject:

 

Eve was not born, she was taken from the rib of Adam, she was not birthed, but she was named like every other creature Adam named. I'm not insinuating that Eve was no different than any other creature, but contrary to that Eve was unique and different than every other creature, she was received, just as we receive someone close to our side, the "mother of all living" as Adam named her.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

 

who was first into the world? Does it matter how someone comes into the world? It’s who gets into the world first has that what can be called birth right. How is it you don’t understand that, being born of Spirit doesn’t confuse you does it? Who was resurrected into the Kingdom of God to sit at the Right Hand of Power first? Therefore, who has all of what that entails? And it’s been said again and again in the case the desire to be in the Kingdom of God who is Lord of that? Don’t you have to do so in the name of Jesus Christ? Isn’t He the “only Way”? when Adam was made, who was receiver of all that was to be received from his Maker?

 

Therefore, if someone owns a business that one works for, who is one’s desire to, to receive of that business? Like a paycheck for instance. And the owner has that right, by some other means maybe but that right is there. Could be birth right or an agreed purchase of the business.

 

Adam lost the Life God originally gave him (die to that life that day) and the Lord had mercy and let them be in the flesh of a life of dust to dust ashes to ashes. Not the same as what they had before they ate of the tree. Jesus restored us to that original Life, by giving us the Life He has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who was first into the world? Does it matter how someone comes into the world? It’s who gets into the world first has that what can be called birth right.

 

Martin,

 

There's much more depth than who was here first. For example, my wife was born before me, should she be the head of our household? Martin, what you're expressing is nothing more than seniority. If my wife is not entitled to headship of our house because she is older than I, then why? My wife is created wonderfully equal, she is very much like Eve was Adam's second self, one to be at hand, or near to me, to converse familiarly with me, to be always ready to assist and comfort me, and whose care and business it should be to please and help me.

 

Eve's punishment was more than just taking of the forbidden fruit, Martin. Eve demonstrated not only a "desire" "contrary" to her husband but also God. You'll be wise and you'll be like God! Eve's deceptive transgression reeks of autonomy. Eve desired what the Serpent hissed, she would be like God, able and independent to rule over herself apart from Adam and God. The correlation is clearly seen in Genesis 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies from the forked tongue of the serpent being offered to Eve; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over herself and himself.

 

Far from being just an issue about seniority, Martin. Eve's transgressions were addressed in Genesis 3:16. God's verdict to Eve's little autonomy coup was stated by "he shall rule over you". Court is adjourned.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Martin,

 

There's much more depth than who was here first. For example, my wife was born before me, should she be the head of our household? Martin, what you're expressing is nothing more than seniority. If my wife is not entitled to headship of our house because she is older than I, then why? My wife is created wonderfully equal, she is very much like Eve was Adam's second self, one to be at hand, or near to me, to converse familiarly with me, to be always ready to assist and comfort me, and whose care and business it should be to please and help me.

 

Eve's punishment was more than just taking of the forbidden fruit, Martin. Eve demonstrated not only a "desire" "contrary" to her husband but also God. You'll be wise and you'll be like God! Eve's deceptive transgression reeks of autonomy. Eve desired what the Serpent hissed, she would be like God, able and independent to rule over herself apart from Adam and God. The correlation is clearly seen in Genesis 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies from the forked tongue of the serpent being offered to Eve; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over herself and himself.

 

Far from being just an issue about seniority, Martin. Eve's transgressions were addressed in Genesis 3:16. God's verdict to Eve's little autonomy coup was stated by "he shall rule over you". Court is adjourned.

 

God bless,

William

 

Na, you are taking what I'm saying way outta context, and you know it. seniority as understood in your context doesn't exist in the scriptural context, but could exist in the world's view, and you know that also. but if she was senior partner in a corporate environment you worked in, and you are not, then, you would be subject in matters of the corporation, right? even if you where married to her. isn't that correct? still who is there first, unless superseded by an agreement. in union bidding for inter company jobs, seniority wins because they got what having employment means first.

 

being subject to another doesn't have to be punishment, aren't you supposed to be subject to the Word of God? also it is man's responsibility to be toward God for the sake of his household, not the woman's. and technically the man is supposed to be closer to that power, and the closer to power one is the more dangerous it is should one error or offend that power.

 

in the simple context of the Lord God setting things, its only complicated by the desires of men to justify their own judgements of what is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy