tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post3546256054083479829..comments2024-02-29T04:02:48.619-05:00Comments on keeping feet: The Nature of WomanJoannahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12937512054883534573noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-35002970939698851552008-05-01T10:20:00.000-04:002008-05-01T10:20:00.000-04:00James- I didn't know "glory", could be used to mea...James- I didn't know "glory", could be used to mean "a representative of the delegated authority". I even checked out the Amplified Bible translation before posting my comment previously, to see if there were other things 'glory' could imply. The verse does make more sense when glory is replaced with "a representative of the delegated authority". Still doesn't explain why long hair is the "glory" of woman (but, just to be safe, I haven't cut my hair in a long while). I don't argue with the commentator's approach on the verse at all. <BR/><BR/>When 'glory' is interpreted by its <A HREF="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glory" REL="nofollow">English meaning</A>, as I was doing, I would hope I can bring glory (praise, honor, or distinction; great beauty and splendor; worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving) to my God as well as my husband! Thanks for clearing up the meaning of the verse and sharing what you know about it.Joannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12937512054883534573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-82986055727115788862008-04-30T16:27:00.000-04:002008-04-30T16:27:00.000-04:00Ha! 11 chapters of a textbook does not a Greek sch...Ha! 11 chapters of a textbook does not a Greek scholar make...<BR/><BR/>I tend to view that verse as following a structure along the lines of:<BR/><BR/>[Cultural application of principle] because of [universal truth].<BR/><BR/>As in:<BR/><BR/>[A man ought not to cover his head,] since [he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.]<BR/><BR/>(And yes, I admit I consulted m-w.com on whether to use principle vs. principal. I always mess that one up.)<BR/><BR/>In case you're interested, the "man as glory of God and woman as glory of man" text... It appears that most commentators I read* seem to approach is as something along the lines of "man is a representative of the delegated authority of God, just as woman is a representative of the authority of man" etc.<BR/><BR/>I think we would agree, also, that woman's image-bearing of God is definitely not less than that of man.<BR/><BR/>But I would say that her image-bearing (and representation of God's glory) <I>derives</I> from man, if for no other reason than how woman was created, which is the point of Paul's explanatory note in <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+cor+11%3A8&sourceid=mozilla-search" REL="nofollow">v8</A> immediately after.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, you might be interested to see a posting on one of the blogs I read regularly. It's an <A HREF="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/04/28/primer-gender-debate/" REL="nofollow">overview on complementarianism and egalitarianism</A>. <BR/><BR/>*Commentators are of course, not inspired. I'm just talking about folks that I think of as generally faithful to the word.James Kubeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812381541964795270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-18800161147068850722008-04-30T15:57:00.000-04:002008-04-30T15:57:00.000-04:00Anonymous Cogitations - I agree, there's nothing w...Anonymous Cogitations - I agree, there's nothing wrong with being a feminist (or an environmentalist!)- I just knew it had a certain connotation in Christian circles, so I threw it out there for discussion- because there are certainly Christians who would label me one for asking these questions, and not mean it in a positive sense.<BR/><BR/>James- Good question. My interpretations aren't well researched, but just my impressions and feelings after reading this. My immediate questions came out.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I didn't immediately connect the 1 Corinthians 11:7 phrase in MacArthur's sermon because it wasn't referenced, and it was being used in a somewhat different context. I had always read the 1 Corinthians passage as a "rules for worship for that specific time and culture"- women should worship with their head covered, men shouldn't cover their head, women should have long hair, men shouldn't- and glossed over it, because it's not something most Christians follow today. There is danger in glossing over any passage in Scripture, for sure. The whole verse <I>[with my logical conclusion]</I> reads "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. <I>[so she ought to cover her head]</I>" Even in context, I'm not sure what it means, "woman is the glory of man"- a few verses later (v 15), it is said that <I>long hair</I> is the glory of woman, and certainly long hair is not to woman what woman is to man and man is to God? So, I don't know.<BR/><BR/> When just a part of the verse is pulled out, "... man ... is the ... glory of God... woman is the glory of man", and it's put in the context of 'man is woman's savior', I come to different conclusions- women aren't created for the glory of God, and women are just for flawed men's purposes. Both those conclusions are troubling. <BR/><BR/>But, I'm not the Greek scholar that you are, so maybe you have different thoughts. :)<BR/><BR/>Thanks everyone for weighing in so far!Joannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12937512054883534573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-36235482937129697422008-04-30T15:50:00.000-04:002008-04-30T15:50:00.000-04:00The first issue that came to my mind when reading ...The first issue that came to my mind when reading this post is the following: I personally know some people who view Genesis as purely allegorical. In the time period in which this was written, many people groups had their own version of creation, etc., so it is logical that the Israelites would have done the same. I'm still pondering this perspective, but I at least wanted to bring it up since a person's view as far as whether it is meant to be taken allegorically or literally affects your interpretation and application. If indeed it is allegorical, then it would be necessary to take cultural issues at that time period into account. What was the current view of women and how did that affect their "story telling?" If it is to be taken literally, it seems that this speaker's interpretation of this passage needs to be reconciled with other passages throughout the Bible. For example, I asked myself just as Teresa did, what about women who are single?<BR/><BR/>I don't think these questions are silly. I also don't think it's wrong to be a feminist. There are actually different waves of feminism. Basically, all feminists are not alike. I think US churches in general associate negative connotations with the word "feminists" because they are scared and don't understand what it means to be a feminist. So many churches talk about a "war on culture," when in reality, the Gospel has already been twisted and manipulated to be convenient in our culture. Just as being environmentally friendly matches up with the concept of being a good steward, there are aspects of feminism that match up with teachings and behaviors of Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-80996752448640889072008-04-30T08:09:00.000-04:002008-04-30T08:09:00.000-04:00I was reading further in l Cor.11:11-12--"In the L...I was reading further in l Cor.11:11-12--"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."<BR/> Woman was made from man to be his companion/helper. Woman was a gift from God to man. <BR/> So, do we live to bring glory to man or God? I think God because he is our Creator and Savior. We are to be the women God created us to be with the different gifts and abilities He has given each of us. D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-2477965296482472572008-04-29T22:46:00.000-04:002008-04-29T22:46:00.000-04:00There is a lot here that could be interacted with,...There is a lot here that could be interacted with, and I'm still assessing the wisdom of doing so... <BR/><BR/>In the meantime, one specific thing puzzles me. You appear (and apologies if I am misreading) to take issue with the statement that "Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man." <BR/><BR/>In fact, it appears that your issue is with that statement <I>itself</I>, and <I>not</I> any interpretation on MacArthur's part. So my question is this... <BR/><BR/>Could you clarify if you disagree with 1 Corinthians 11:7 itself, or, if you do not, then please clarify how you <I>would</I> apply that verse?James Kubeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812381541964795270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-18705150744713634612008-04-29T22:13:00.000-04:002008-04-29T22:13:00.000-04:00Sorry, Prov 31.Sorry, Prov 31.Daniel and Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06615339858078120043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832486.post-10807861458995006852008-04-29T22:12:00.000-04:002008-04-29T22:12:00.000-04:00Wow, interesting sermon. My first thoughts are, is...Wow, interesting sermon. My first thoughts are, isn't Christ my strength? Isn't he the one to protect me from being deceived? And what about unmarried women. Can they not live and operate on their own in Christ without a husband? I definitely agree with your questions and concerns- I want Daniel to be the head of our family, but Jesus is my ultimate Lord, Sustainer, and Head, not Daniel. (and Prov. 30 talks about a fairly strong, initiating woman).Daniel and Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06615339858078120043noreply@blogger.com