Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

PO it is good to see you around these parts again.........

Hope you and yours are doing well!

[ILG]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Warning and admonishing people not to sin because it brings on bad juju is not "setting a foundation of fear", as if this is a bad thing. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, to depart from evil, to avoid what is contrary to God's will. That is a good thing. But the wicked do not have that fear of God, instead they think it's all "hellfire and damnation preaching to scare people into being mind control victims".

So a woman cutting her hair brings on hellfire and damnation as if she killed someone? Preposterous! Especially when the Bible never says a woman should not cut her hair! But it does say Thou shalt not kill!

Amazing that you confounded the author's meaning. They are not suggesting that women have a Biblical way to manipulate people. Rather, they are saying women have sought control and power through illegitimate means, attempting to control their personal environment by manipulating men and society. Instead, a godly woman is not helpless and powerless, she CAN affect and influence her environment/situation, but in a godly way, by godly means, by being a genuinely godly woman in submission to God's precepts. You have twisted what was said into a caricature, a straw man, that you can knock down.

She said a woman can control her environment without sin. How? By not cutting her hair!

Is the whole book about uncut hair?

Here is what the back of the booklet says:

A unique study on the subject of holiness. This lesson explores the visions of Ezekiel, giving knowledgeable information about the cherubim and seraphim. The Glory of God is emphasized as the authors discuss divine order, honor, and respect for God's holiness. Holiness is not a list of rules, but rather preparing an environment for the glory of God.

But yes, pretty much about uncut hair.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I've been trying to find out how many pages are in the book but I can't seem to find that info anywhere.

37 pages if you include the sources.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

We live in interesting times. The cultural backlash against Biblical norms and customs for women and femininity is at an all time high. The Church is all too often found being influenced by the world, instead of the other way around.

One of ways the world has successfully deceived members of the Body of Christ, particularly women, is by linking the word "submission" to "doormat".

The world has had such an awful history when it comes to women being harassed, manipulated, abused, raped, tortured, and murdered, especially in patriarchal societies, that to even suggest a woman ought to submit to her husband comes across as misogynistic and degrading, at least in our Western, 21st century, post-modern culture.

For this reason, many Apostolic women are being fed from two different spoons. They are being presented with a false dichotomy. One spoon contains Biblical morsels about marriage, respect, submission, and etc. None dare pretend they don't stand for these things.

But the other spoon contains worldly morsels about how ugly and hurtful and stupid and mean men are vis a vis how beautiful and caring and intelligent and kind women are, so it's best to make sure you never find yourself underneath one, or, if you do, make sure you let him known who's in charge. Headship becomes neckship.

Now, this second message could never overtly be preached to any Apostolic woman, because everyone would recognize it for what it is: slander and blasphemy.

So, instead, alternative methods are devised in which this second message can be spiritually codified and justified through the perverting of certain verses of Holy Scripture. Then it can be preached as revelation and insight into the deep mysteries of God.

But the "power on her head" phrase has been used so much over the last couple of decades to engender and propagate so many bad ideas and false doctrines as to stagger the mind.

So, for the "silly woman" who is "laden with sins", who is carnally minded, these worldly morsels entice her into circumnavigating God's established order so it can be redefined and made into something it's not, something that is easy to swallow and makes for good sermon and book fodder, especially at retreats and conventions.

Therefore, there will be no end to this kind of nonsense. Paul called it out way back when, and whether or not anyone, man or woman, cares at all about what the Lord's emissary to the Gentiles had to say, or not, is really something no one can adequately measure or enforce, one way or the other.

Everyone will be persuaded each in their own minds. All anyone can do is continue to declare the right ways of the Lord and depend upon Him to sort His people out.

Very good points. And true about the worldly order. The worldly order is that men rule and women cower. When the CURSE came to Adam and Eve, work was part of the curse, pain in childbearing, which we try to alleviate. But men ruling over women? That is reinforced.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by houston

The woman has wanted to exercise control over man since the fall. Eve's desire for her husband was the desire to control him. (Whoops)

Now she can control without sin! By not cutting her hair!

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sis, we have already done it. The forum is weighted down thick.
Jesus could preach it, and David could play his harp, and the haters are gonna hate. ILG has a Facebook page where she and her followers lick their wounds. Does she have people show up there when she is holding court? No, it is all jumping through hoops over here to refute a book? Last one was Brother Bernard? What's the name of ILG's forum? Reasons why I hate the UPCI? Wow.

It's called Breaking Out. And it's about healing. A bruised reed will He not break....and all that.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, is the Paul was "covering" Paul was talking about a woman's long uncut hair, or is it an actual head covering? Because, I'd like to expand upon this if possible. Here's my understanding, provided as commentary to the text:

1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Paul desires that they be imitators of himself as he follows the Lord.

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul commends them for remembering his needs and maintaining the traditions (or ordinances) he taught to them.

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Here Paul is bringing up the primary issue, headship. Paul teaches the order of headship: Christ, husband, and then wife.

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Here Paul states that if any man prays with his head covered or veiled (as the male temple prostitutes) he dishonors his “head” (meaning Jesus Christ).

5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

But every wife who prays or prophesies without her veil dishonors her “head” (or husband). This is because it is as shameful AS IF her head were shaven (punishment of public humiliation given to immoral women).

6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

If a wife will not wear her veil, then she should cut her hair short (as a form of self inflicted humiliation). But since it is so disgraceful to be put to public shame by having her hair shorn, she should simply wear her veil.

7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

A man shouldn’t cover his head as a woman, since the man is the very image and glory of God. However, a wife is her husband’s glory (by bringing honor to him).

8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Order of creation: Woman was made from man.

9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Order of purpose: Man wasn’t created for the woman, but rather woman was created to be a mate and companion for man.

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Thus a woman’s modesty through the wearing of the veil serves as a symbol of her husband’s authority over her. The term “because of the angels” is widely debated. However, we know that a modestly adorned Christian woman prevents men from being influenced by seductive spirits (fallen angels) that would entice him to lust and adultery.

11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

Mutual need: Both the husband and his wife need each other.

12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Neither is greater than the other in value because men are born from women and this is by God’s design.

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul asks the Corinthians to determine for themselves if a woman should pray to God while immodestly attired.

14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul draws an example to strengthen his argument from nature stated that even human nature teaches that if a man wears long effeminate hair it is disgraceful. However, if a woman has long hair, it is considered beautiful and her glory. For long hair was given her by nature as a covering.

16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Some would say that Paul is illustrating that while head covering was customary for the Corinthians, it isn't a church wide custom. Thus contention on the matter is rejected.

In Summary:

-Obviously the women weren't in submission, so Paul explains headship.

-What was the problem? They were not wearing their veils, thereby dishonoring their husbands.

-Paul tells them to be covered.

-Paul explains why headship exists.

-Paul explains that even nature agrees because it covered her with hair.

-Paul illustrates long hair is shameful on a man but is a womans beauty, or glory.

-Some say that Paul indicates that a woman wearing a head covering was proper for the Corinthians, but this isn't a mandated church wide practice.

It's all right there and is still practiced in old world churches in that culture today; and has been for almost two thousand years.

Why do we feel the need to draw from the occult (symbol and power of uncut hair and/or holy magic hair) to establish doctrine???

I personally believe it was an actual headcovering, most likely meant for those in that culture. Certainly not salvational.

[ILG]

In any event, the woman's head covering is said by Paul to be necessary to cover her head, which represents the glory of man:

Under the new covenant, God's glory is not to be covered, as it was under the old covenant. This is symbolized by the Christian man having his head uncovered when ministering, whereas the priest in the old covenant had his head covered (with a turban, or bonnet) - see Ex 28:40.

God's plan requires His glory be on display, and man's glory be covered. This is symbolized by the woman's head being covered, since she is "the glory of the man".

Under the old covenant, the law is covered or concealed by the mercy seat (the "atonement" or "covering"). The law written on stone tables represents the old covenant, which is subordinate to the new covenant. As the woman is subordinate to the man in the hierarchy of God's creation, the old covenant is subordinate to the new in the hierarchy of God's covenants. The woman is covered, as the stone tables were covered.

I am sure more correlations could be found if pressed, but to suggest the cherubim covering the mercy seat = divine power flowing through the women's head covering (or hair, if you believe that way) seems extremely forced and unnatural.

Paul taught on head covering and nowhere gave the idea that covering = special abilities or special favours. The most that can be said is obedience to God brings favor, and disobedience brings corrective chastisement. But that is true of anything.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the covering of hair does not equate to the mercy seat?

[Aquila]

The head covering (or veil) that Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 11 was a first century standard of modesty for women.

Any time a woman covers herself in modesty, she reveals that she is submitted to authority and honors her head (meaning her husband).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But 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.

An immodest and shameful woman is clearly not in submission. And she dishonors her head (meaning husband). Appearing immodest in public, or in worship gatherings, is just as shameful to her husband as it would be if she were publically put to shame like a prostitute (which involved the shaving or sheering of the hair).

1 Corinthians 11:5 (KJV)
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.

The entire issue isn't about holy magic hair, uncut hair, or having authority over angels or spirits. It's about submission, modesty, and honoring one's husband by wearing modest attire.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The head covering (or veil) that Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 11 was a first century standard of modesty for women.

Any time a woman covers herself in modesty, she reveals that she is submitted to authority and honors her head (meaning her husband).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But 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.

An immodest and shameful woman is clearly not in submission. And she dishonors her head (meaning husband). Appearing immodest in public, or in worship gatherings, is just as shameful to her husband as it would be if she were publically put to shame like a prostitute (which involved the shaving or sheering of the hair).

1 Corinthians 11:5 (KJV)
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.

The entire issue isn't about holy magic hair, uncut hair, or having authority over angels or spirits. It's about submission, modesty, and honoring one's husband by wearing modest attire.

Sounds reasonable!