Actually this has not got off topic, for the topic comes down to man made rules and laws that he sets before himself, for he thinks by following these rules he will be righteous in Gods eyes, and so earn His place in heaven, never being able to accept that Jesus has already paid the price and that you are approved of by God for what Jesus did, not because of what you do. every time you say. :" i must do this to come to Jesus", you make a new law and put another barrier between you And Jesus and so do away with Grace. And I must reiterate, a person is not saved because he mimics a few words that a pastor . what ever, speaks in church, a person becomes saved when they wtih there own heart call out to Christ with all their heart. Words mean nothing to God its the heart that counts. You can get a witch and satanist to repeat the sinners prayer , even a parrot, but they dont mean it, so it counts for nought. Stop looking at the outside and examine the heart for that is where true intentions lie. Did not Jesus say,"

(Mat 15:17)  Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
(Mat 15:18)  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
(Mat 15:19)  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Its hasnt changed.

In His LOve

No one said anything about "willful disobedience".  That's the real straw man argument.

My opinion is that you do things to suit yourself, just as you think I do things to suit myself.  The truth is that neither is the reality.  It's all human opinion and interpretation.  That's why we have so many denominations.  It's a matter of the heart.  You can't see mine, nor I yours, but we can see the fruit of the heart.  I have a different hermeneutic than you, and cally's is different from yours and mine.  All of us are trying to be and do what we we understand Scripture to be saying.  Is God going to remove His grace because one or two of us hear Him saying something different than another?  I think not.

All of us can't be right, but all of us can be wrong.  God's grace is big enough to cover us all.

Phoebe, you have said that it is all human opinion and interpretation. Perhaps. However all interpretations and opinions can be tested for consistency, and see if they function well across the board, or if they break down.

I come from a complementarian position, you from an egalitarian. From what you have said, and from doing my homework   while you were on vacation,    I learned that those with an egalitarian approach to how the church ought to function base much of their position of an understanding of kephale/head that is at variance with it’s normal and traditional (read complementarian) translation.

Perhaps the best example of this was found on Skip Moen’s blog, with a response from Gilbert Bilezikian on September 15, 2009 where Gilbert said “I appreciate your sensitivity to differences between languages. Further research, amply reflected in the Third Edition of my Beyond Sex Roles, establishes that the meaning of kephale defined within its New Testament use never refers to an authority role of Christ in regard to the church. It consistently emphasizes his redemptive function as servant provider of salvation, of nurture, growth, life and love. According to the New Testament, to be “head” for either Christ or husbands never means to rule or to lead, but always, to give self-sacrificially and to serve. The English language inverses the meaning of “head,” turning it upon its head. This can easily be verified by reviewing the instances of the use of head in Ephesians and Colossians. Kephale in those texts would be accurately translated as “servant provider.” Thank you for your work.”

Obviously “servant provider” - which is the egalitarian understanding of what Christ does for the church, and what the man does for the woman - is quite different than the traditional complementarian “servant leader” position as set forth quite ably by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000: “The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.” This statement also gives us a good working definition of the traditional concept of headship.

Interestingly, the egalitarian “servant provider” definition of kephale at least makes sense when used in Ephesians 1: 22-23, Ephesians 4:15-16, and Ephesians 5:23. Also Colossians 1:18-19 and actually sounds very good when used in Colossians 2:19.

However, something you never see the egalitarians do is take this recent re-interpretation of kephale and apply it to 1st Corinthians 11, which strikes me as being inconsistent. So if they won’t do it, let me take a stab at it and see how it works.

In order to see whether in any given instance the reference is to a physical head, or the “servant provider,” I put both in, and we can read it, think about it and see which is most appropriate, and see how well it makes sense. (If any)

1st Corinthians 11:3  But I want you to know that the (servant provider)? (head) of every man is Christ, the (servant provider) ? (head) of woman is man, and the (servant provider) ? (head) of Christ is God.
:4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his (servant provider) ? (head) covered, dishonors his (servant provider) ? (head.)
:5  But every woman who prays or prophesies with her (servant provider) ? ( head)  uncovered dishonors her (servant provider) ? ( head) , for that is one and the same as if her (servant provider) ? (head) were shaved.
:6  For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
:7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his (servant provider) ? (head), since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
:8  For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
:9  Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
:10  For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her (servant provider) ? (head), because of the angels.
:11  Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
:12  For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
:13  Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her (servant provider) ? (head) uncovered?

My best guess would be something like this,    (try your own version, maybe you can do better?)    however verse 10 defies even a guess:

1st Corinthians 11:3  But I want you to know that the servant provider of every man is Christ, the servant provider of woman is man, and the servant provider of Christ is God.
:4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his servant provider.
:5  But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her servant provider, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
:6  For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
:7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his servant provider, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
:8  For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
:9  Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
:10  For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her (servant provider) ? (head), because of the angels.
:11  Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
:12  For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
:13  Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Wow...    To imply that the Holy Spirit might have come up with anything even remotely approaching this mess is really insulting, yet that is pretty much what you would have to do if kephale really means “servant provider.”

So imo, the egalitarian choice of “servant provider” as a proper translation of kephale might work real well for them in some verses, but utterly fails to make any sense when applied consistently, as here in 1st Corinthians 11.

Which is probably why they don’t go there, and why Gilbert Bilezikian didn't mention it on Skip Moen's blog...

The really short answer is: if I thought I was at fault with something, I'd fix it (or at least, I'll be caught by God en route to fixing it). And catering to what seems to make people feel good at God's expense is the beginning of reducing the church to illegitimacy. The distinct warning of 1 Corinthians 11:34 is one example of how serious it is to get the group's mind off of their "party theme."

There is another aspect that relates to "faith." For example, chosenone believes she grasps the principle behind head coverings and so does not need to actually carry out the symbolism literally.

However, that is not the tune of those who establish separate reasoning than what Paul puts forth in "he is the image of God, but woman is the glory of man," and "man was not made for woman, but woman for man."

"They declare, 'but men and women are equal, you know'" or something to that effect. Who are they objecting to in that case? Since they are objecting to what the custom actually symbolized then the matter becomes rather serious.

Chosenone is definitely closer to the truth (I hope she pardons me using her as an example--just the general position).

The general tune I'm getting from Pheobe here is kind of a "people, society" apart from the Truth, and people/society is underneath that and powerless without its head. People have to agree with God--the "truth" as being higher than people is our humility before God.

So being in "error" or having trouble understanding is part of the journey everybody's on, but even still, there is the matter of "faith". For instance, I am strongly in favor of head coverings because I believe on faith that it will teach us all something about the underlying principles that Paul puts forth in 1 Corinthians 11, that was important enough to say "now I want you to realize". Whether we understand everything about what he's talking about.

And most of your vernacular, ironically, is right out of Paul's book: "the flesh," being fiercely opposed to Judaism, Jewish tradition, and so on.

The difference is that Judaism (as Paul clearly says) they "sought to establish their own" (righteousness) and their righteousness "was not based on knowledge." They came up with laws and traditions that had absolutely no use, and no meaning, and it was truly impossible to even follow Mosaic law and the laws of the Pharisees at the same time. And the covenant of circumcision was specifically the law doctrine which only has power to condemn, not fulfill.

The head coverings had a purpose, and today's culture hates the purpose, by showing what is viewed by the world as "inequality" that Paul DID want to be shown, hence most people who hate this custom do so because they are hating the scripture that comes directly before it.

Marriage is a law covenant that we still uphold today, for example. Of course Communion is another custom that replaces the Passover (Jewish) custom.

I don't think I have missed anything,  I think you have the curious idea that the only thing important is what Jesus said and did, and what Paul, Peter, John and James wrote is irrelevant.

Question: what does this verse mean? 1Co 14:37  If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

Is Paul lying? Either Paul's writing has same authority as the commandments of Jesus, or Paul is lying and his writings need to be ignored.  You can't have it both ways. We really need to get this resolved.

cally.  You are always so far from what I say that it isn't funny.

How can I take seriously what you say?  You believe in headcoverings but not in gathering with God's people.  Go figure.  (internet forums don't count)

I didn't say that kephale meant "male authority," you did. My position is when the church comes together as a congregation to worship God, whose glory do we want to see? Man's? Or God's? When we gather to worship God, His glory is paramount, and our glory - if we have any - needs to go away, disappear, get hidden, be out of sight. We don't need to see any sort of human, fleshly glory in God's presence, the only glory seen in the church meeting ought to be the glory of Christ.

According to 1 Cor 11, woman has two glories: her ability to adorn and glorify man and make him more than he is, and also her glory of her own hair. So what should she do about this glory of her hair that she has when she comes into the presence of God? How can she not dishonor herself and the man by exhibiting her glory in the presence of God? The answer is found in verse 7, which says that a man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. Covering one's head symbolically covers whichever glory is involved, and the woman has the responsibility to cover her (and the man's) glory, or only her own if she is unmarried.

So when the congregation comes together into the presence of God, the man leaves his head uncovered so as not to symbolically cover or dishonor the glory of God, while the woman covers her head in order to symbolically cover the glory of man - herself - and also the glory of woman, - her hair. That is what I have been saying. It is not complicated, it is not conflicted. It is simple, it is evident by reading the passage without a preconceived bias.

You are seeing the situation from your own background which is that the head covering is a token of a woman's accepting submission to her husband, and the man's lack of head covering shows his acceptance of headship over his woman (in the same spirit of self sacrifice that his Head Jesus Christ showed to him.)

Reading through the various articles on gal328.org (I read most of them) it is apparent that in some churches the women get totally squelched, and naturally there is a backlash. But the solution is not to rewrite doctrine to fix the problem, even to the point of redefining what the Greek words mean. The Bible does not say that women are to be non-participants, it does say that women are not to teach, preach or be in authority. Obviously that is not going to sit well with someone who wants a full egalitarian position, but that's what it says. To go beyond that is to start redefining Scripture to meet an agenda.