When Will A Respected and Influential Leader Speak

[ManOfWord]

When one studies the passage, and digs a little deeper than a VERY small part of the body of Christ's interpretation, one finds that the scripture actually is translated, "power OVER her head" not ON her head. Which means that that woman has power over her own head to decide whether to veil or not to veil. 1Cor. 11:1-16

I challenge some of you to look it up and check it out: Below, is an excerpt from Katharine Bushnell's "God's Word To Women" and is very eye opening.

WARNING: Ladies, if you want to remain in the traditions of men, DO NOT read this.
Here is the link to the entire online book -

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/gwtw.htm

Lesson 29 The Sophistry of the Veil


Now please note, first of all, that at verse 10, first clause, Dr. Weymouth substitutes something totally different from what the text says. The text reads, "ought to have power," while Dr. Weymouth, following the usual interpretation, says, "ought to have… a symbol of subjection." The original word for "power," here, is exousia, meaning authority, right; the same word for "power," and preposition for on, epi, (often translated "over"), with the same construction, will be found in many places, for instance, Revelation 11:6, "They have power over waters to turn them to blood." And likewise in Matthew, Mark and Luke, in the sentence, "The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." Furthermore, the original text here has never been called into question; the reading is as simple as it could possibly be, "The woman ought to have power over (rendered "on" in the English Versions) her head." No scholar questions this. 218.At this place, the Authorized Version introduces the longest Marginal Note to be found in the whole Bible. Where Paul says, "ought to have power," the Note reads, "That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband." This is certainly a most extraordinary substitute for the words of Scripture. Had it read merely, that she was to be "under power," even that would have been a contradiction of the explicit statement of St. Paul; but they add to this contradicting thought: The woman is not only expected to yield to authority, instead of wielding authority, but also to "wear a sign" that she renounces the authority Paul gives her. And not only is she to renounce that authority, but to renounce it in favor of a particular person, her husband. The Bible St. Paul says nothing of this sort, but the Marginal Note, and the Bible Commentators teach it. For our part, we think it suspicious because that husbands, not wives, have discovered this extraordinary meaning for St. Paul's words. If indeed a woman should wear "a sign of subjection" (and scholars can produce no Scriptural proof that a veil is a sign of subjection), then why should it not rather be a sign of subjection to God, whom she serves in prophesying, or whom she addresses in prayer? Why is the husband thrust in by husbands, at this point? Dr. J. W. Thirtle makes the sensible remark here, "The context puts in no plea for anyone outside the woman: it is THE WOMAN"S OWN AUTHORITY that is in question, and the Apostle defends it with his decisive OUGHT." (The capitals are Dr. Thirtle’s.)
219.This phrase in verse 10 is manifestly a conclusion the ergo of all the foregoing arguments of the passage. Now we ask, If you were arguing a point, would you, or would you not, know the point you were arguing? Certainly you would know it. And would you know how to state your point? Certainly, even if you could not argue it, for you have your right mind. St. Paul was a highly intelligent person, and to pretend that he knew how to argue a point, but could not express the point in plain words, is puerile. Whether Paul knew how to argue clearly or not, he knew how to state what he was arguing about, or St. Paul's intelligence was far below the average man’s. And when we believe that St. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote, then we must yield at once that verse 10 means what it says, and we dare not reject its teaching for the "vain traditions of men."
220. Of the usual interpretation here, Sir William Ramsay, our present-day most widely accepted authority on St. Paul, says very truly, "Most of the ancient and modern commentators say the ‘authority’ which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the N. T., where (as they seem to think), Greek words may mean anything that the commentators choose." Here, then, in the usual interpretation, is a Tremendous Misfit.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

When one studies the passage, and digs a little deeper than a VERY small part of the body of Christ's interpretation, one finds that the scripture actually is translated, "power OVER her head" not ON her head. Which means that that woman has power over her own head to decide whether to veil or not to veil. 1Cor. 11:1-16

I challenge some of you to look it up and check it out: Below, is an excerpt from Katharine Bushnell's "God's Word To Women" and is very eye opening.

]

This is sort of off the cuff since i did not read the link provided... but from the authorities I have read on Cor. 11 and history THIS would be the "VERY small part of the body of Christ's interpretation" as well.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

This is sort of off the cuff since i did not read the link provided... but from the authorities I have read on Cor. 11 and history THIS would be the "VERY small part of the body of Christ's interpretation" as well.

That would be kind of like how the Christian church took the passover meal and reduced it to a swig of juice and a cracker. What we do isn't even remotely close to the biblical remembrance.

However, 99.9% of all Christian churches do it this way, which makes it right, right?

[Praxeas]

Some of the best Greek Scholars say symbol of authority on her head...the reason is because man came first and woman was made FOR man and is the GLORY of man

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

That would be kind of like how the Christian church took the passover meal and reduced it to a swig of juice and a cracker. What we do isn't even remotely close to the biblical remembrance.

However, 99.9% of all Christian churches do it this way, which makes it right, right?

I was simply pointing out that the UPC/Apostolic view is not held by many scholars but neither is the view that Paul was teaching Corinthian woman they had the power (right) to choose whether or not to veil themselves.

BTW... IMHO (I really hate to confess this) When a large number of Born Again followers of Christ adhere to a doctrine for two thousand years it does give it SOME credibility.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

BTW... IMHO (I really hate to confess this) When a large number of Born Again followers of Christ adhere to a doctrine for two thousand years it does give it SOME credibility.

Who is the large number of born again followers?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Who is the large number of born again followers?

Lots of threads and lots of posts out there about this question...


The point is for two thousand years nearly ALL Christians (Born Again and otherwise... )of all denominations had Women veiling their head when praying and prophesying. Even today the majority read 1 Corinthians in that context, though many would no longer practice it citing a culture irrelevance.

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Lots of threads and lots of posts out there about this question...


The point is for two thousand years nearly ALL Christians (Born Again and otherwise... )of all denominations had Women veiling their head when praying and prophesying. Even today the majority read 1 Corinthians in that context, though many would no longer practice it citing a culture irrelevance.

That does it...I am getting my hats out

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

That does it...I am getting my hats out

LOL! We may need a new smiley.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Let's see... if they do not believe in Jesus and His scriptures (including Acts 2:38) they will be lost.

Ok I can go with that.

Or did you not only mean believe the message of Acts 2:38, but also, believe and practice it exactly as you and I do??

You or no one else is the least bit confused at what I am saying. Everyone who does not preach and practice the Acts 2:38 message is lost.