|
Post by openairforce on Jan 26, 2008 0:42:27 GMT -5
Is it OK for men to wear hats when they preach? And should a women cover? Propriety in Worship 2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
|
|
|
Post by openairforce on Jan 26, 2008 15:52:14 GMT -5
For those of you who do wear a hat while OA preaching, witnessing 1-2-1 or praying... Why do you feel this scripture does not pertain?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 26, 2008 18:20:34 GMT -5
I believe the context of those verses, and chapters 11-14, are in the local assembly. That is, when the saints are gathered together in a worship setting.
|
|
|
Post by openairforce on Jan 26, 2008 21:13:30 GMT -5
I believe the context of those verses, and chapters 11-14, are in the local assembly. That is, when the saints are gathered together in a worship setting. Would that mean that a woman is also not required to cover? I am not seeing where it is talking specifically about the local congregation. In fact I would agree that Christ is the Head of every man today tomorrow and forever. And that if it disgraces Him in the local assembly, it would also disgrace Him anywhere. So I see it saying that any time you pray or prophesy covered you would be disgracing Christ. Am I missing something that I just don't see? I have stopped wearing a hat even in the winter time when on the streets. It can get mighty cold but I would rather error on that side. Anymore help would be appreciated.
|
|
mattmahar
Full Member
`Lo, thou hast become whole; sin no more, lest something worse may happen to thee.' John 5:14
Posts: 151
|
Post by mattmahar on Jan 26, 2008 21:30:32 GMT -5
Personally I don't have a magic answer for you on this topic. But I would say that if your conscience convicts you of wearing a hat while preaching the Gospel than it's probably best not to wear a hat when preaching the Gospel.
A principle I go by is if my conscience convicts me than it is sin to me, but if it doesn't convict me than it is not sin to me.
Romans 14:14,23 (14.) I have known, and am persuaded, in the Lord Jesus, that nothing [is] unclean of itself, except to him who is reckoning anything to be unclean -- to that one [it is] unclean;
(23.) and he who is making a difference, if he may eat, hath been condemned, because [it is] not of faith; and all that [is] not of faith is sin.
In Christ Matt
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 26, 2008 22:46:41 GMT -5
But we are to pray always... If we take this to the full extent, it's a sin for a woman to wash her hair and pray at the same time- that is if she takes a covering off.
You don't see chapters 11-14 going together?
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jan 26, 2008 23:07:16 GMT -5
Maybe we should be asking Al-Kaida about this.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jan 26, 2008 23:11:07 GMT -5
Maybe we men need to shave our heads.
|
|
|
Post by openairforce on Jan 27, 2008 17:39:18 GMT -5
But we are to pray always... If we take this to the full extent, it's a sin for a woman to wash her hair and pray at the same time- that is if she takes a covering off. You don't see chapters 11-14 going together? That is good Brother. I have never thought about not being covered as much as being covered.... It's easy to imagine never wearing a hat, but it is much more difficult, if it is the case, for a woman to never be uncovered. I do agree it is in worship. But are we not to worship the Lord always?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 27, 2008 18:19:34 GMT -5
I wear a hat sometimes when I am preaching in the sun. I guess some would consider preaching the same thing as prophesying? I sometimes wear a hat in the open air because I get very bad sun burn if I am in the sun for 4-5 hours. And it's hard to preach every day, for hours, in the sun, without getting sun burn.
But I do not wear a hat if I am worshiping or praying. And of course I do not worship or pray in the sun for hours each day.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 27, 2008 22:14:08 GMT -5
Yes, our whole lives should be worship. But I don't believe we are always to be in corporate worship.
I guess when I read through 1 Cor I see Paul starting a new subject in chapter 11. I see the below verse giving us the context of his instruction in chapters 11-14.
1Cr 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
I think this is one of the main themes, if not the entire theme of 1 Cor. Paul was dealing with the church gathering and ungodly divisions.
In chapters 1-10 I see him dealing with sin and divisions in the church. Then in 11-14 he is dealing with the corporate worship/ assembly of saints. He finishes off the letter with a great hope of having a new body- when means we won't have to deal with all the problems he is trying to address through the whole letter.
Of course there are other topics dealt with in the letter, but I see those as being the main themes.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 28, 2008 12:17:24 GMT -5
Is it OK for men to wear hats when they preach? And should a women cover? Propriety in Worship 2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. My conviction is to wear a headcovering in church. This is a good example of some of the things women should be teaching one another but unfortunately too many women are just running around doing their own thing. Im supposed to go to a Beth Moore bible study tonight. I really do not feel like going but I am out of obedience to the Lord. Older women are supposed to teach younger women but in my case I have to teach women who are much older than me because there basically aren't very many godly women out there who can teach me anything except what I read about.
|
|
|
Post by openairforce on Jan 28, 2008 18:28:40 GMT -5
Is it OK for men to wear hats when they preach? And should a women cover? Propriety in Worship 2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. My conviction is to wear a headcovering in church. This is a good example of some of the things women should be teaching one another but unfortunately too many women are just running around doing their own thing. Im supposed to go to a Beth Moore bible study tonight. I really do not feel like going but I am out of obedience to the Lord. Older women are supposed to teach younger women but in my case I have to teach women who are much older than me because there basically aren't very many godly women out there who can teach me anything except what I read about. Praise the Lord Sister for standing up for your convictions!!
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 28, 2008 20:58:56 GMT -5
My conviction is to wear a headcovering in church. This is a good example of some of the things women should be teaching one another but unfortunately too many women are just running around doing their own thing. Im supposed to go to a Beth Moore bible study tonight. I really do not feel like going but I am out of obedience to the Lord. Older women are supposed to teach younger women but in my case I have to teach women who are much older than me because there basically aren't very many godly women out there who can teach me anything except what I read about. Praise the Lord Sister for standing up for your convictions!! Thanks, there's only a few women that wear head coverings in our church but it should be your conviction.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Jan 28, 2008 22:47:03 GMT -5
Context
In Corinth, like other port cities in between several trade routes, sailors came to town looking for supplies, drugs, alcohol and sex. Most of the traveling sailors spoke different languages than the people in the city and were depended on the directions of their fellow sailors to find the places to fulfill their lust. The Cult of Aphrodite was based in Corinth and became the main draw of the city.
Strabo, Geography 8. 6. 20 (trans. Jones) (Greek geographer C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) : "The temple of Aphrodite [in Korinthos in the days of the tyrant Kypselos] was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans, whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess. And therefore it was also on account of these women that the city was crowded with people and grew rich; for instance, the ship captains freely squandered their money, and hence the proverb, `Not for every man is the voyage to Korinthos.' . . . Now the summit [of the Akrokorinthos] has a small temple of Aphrodite; and below the summit is the spring Peirene . . . At any rate, Euripides says, `I am come, having left Akrokorinthos that is washed on all sides, the sacred hill-city of Aphrodite.'"
During the 1st century, there were many small houses dedicated to the worship of Aphrodite, which young women were to serve as temple prostitutes, performing for any man that chose her. As you can imagine, this was a horrible experience for these women and they were often drugged so they could carry out their duties. While in an intoxicated state, these prostitutes would often be raped, lacking the ability to willingly lie with the patrons. It is said that these women would sing, shout and scream unintelligible murmurings as a result of the drugs and abuse they were experiencing. Sailors would say, “Just listen for voices of the women coming from the houses and you will know you are in the right place.” After their time serving as temple prostitutes, the young ladies were scared for life. As in other cases of sexual abuse, the women had a hard time adjusting to life after prostitution. Some of them became as perverse as their male patrons to the point of seeking equality in both vice and virtue. These women sometimes shaved their heads and bared their breast, dressing like men instead of women. Likewise, men dressed as women and sought to deny their natural gender. It is this Corinth that Paul wrote to. The church had come out of this evil culture and was plagued with sexual immorality.
Forbidding women to speak to the congregation in “tongues”, to pray with their head uncovered and other such exhortations must be taken in context. When Paul says that the “law” forbids a woman to speak in the assembly, note that nowhere in the “Law of Moses” are women forbidden to speak in the assembly of God’s people. What law is Paul referring to? The Romans were extremely concerned about riots and made many laws to avoid circumstances which would bring about a riot. Women speaking in public as to address a large crowd would likely be outlawed given the problems that arose as sailors meandered through the streets looking for prostitutes, possibly mistaking someone’s wife, daughter, sister or mother for a temple priestess. Paul elsewhere allows women to speak, prophesy, speak in tongues, etc. Unless Paul is contradicting himself, it seems that the situation in Corinth was unique and needs to be understood as such. Certainly, in the Pastorals, Paul clearly states that men are to hold the office of bishops or pastors, and that deacons have different duties than deaconess’, but this a different issue altogether.
Just some food for thought.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 29, 2008 6:11:42 GMT -5
Forbidding women to speak to the congregation in “tongues”, to pray with their head uncovered and other such exhortations must be taken in context. I agree that women should not be forbidden to pray or speak with their head uncovered. The apostle Paul said that the church had no such custom. Having your head covered was definately a custom but why? Paul goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Paul was not speaking on behalf of Corinth here but of himself. Paul was saying "judge in yourselelf" not "judge by the standards of Corinth". This is probably the best place to start when your deciding to wear a head covering or not. I looked up that word "comely" and it means pleasing in appearance, attractive or proper. This is why it is not a law or required that a woman covers her head because it is a matter of appearance and not something that would cause another believer to stumble or sin. Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? What do you think? Notice, Im not saying uncomely but comely. It's not saying here that you are covering up something that is wrong but covering because it's comely or more attractive in a godly sense, just as it's more comely for a woman to have long hair than short hair. I could use many more examples here but I don't want to bring in any confusion. Just something to think about. Also the apostle Paul mentions the angels not Corinth. Is it comely that a man covers his head? No, because the man is the image and the glory of God but the woman is the glory of man.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 29, 2008 7:28:54 GMT -5
Veil and Head Coverings By Linda Conner (with additional notes by David Eells)
Here is what the Lord caused me to understand by word of knowledge. He told me that the primary focus of the veil in 1 Cor.11 is not about submission. The primary focus is about glory.
He said that since a woman's glory is her hair and it is given to her as a glorious covering, that when she ministers to the Lord whether in prayer (or exhibiting other spiritual gifts), she is to veil her glory out of a sense of respect for God. She is, in essence, submitting her fleshly "glory" and veiling it in HIS presence and that this act is witnessed by the angelic beings. This shows the angelic beings that she is bowing herself down and showing reverence and respect for God's Order of things; that being, the man as head, Christ as head of the man and God being the head of Christ. The veil is actually a sign in the spiritual realm that the woman has submitted to God's Order. When she submits to this, she is actually given authority in the heavenly realm (this is where the angels come in). This would be the authority of God to speak prophetically as well as any gifting that she has been given.
If she does not veil her glory, then that automatically brings dishonor to her head who is the man since she is the glory of the man. He caused me to understand that what is not said is that she has brought dishonor to herself as well. Conversely, the man does not veil his head because he reflects the glory of Christ. (I Cor.11:7).
He caused me to understand that the devil had come in and tweaked the emphasis that the church has put on this and made us to think that the whole emphasis is on submission when the emphasis is really how the woman can manifest God's glory (which must be expressed in divine order just as Christ submitted Himself to the Father, even though He is God) rather than her own glory, and thus bring honor to herself and her husband. It was meant as a positive thing for a woman to veil her head rather than a negative thing that it seems to have become.
Finally, the point Paul is trying to make is that since the woman's hair is her glory, if she doesn't veil it in The Presence, then she is to be shaved which is extremely shameful. He is drawing the parallel that it is extremely shameful for a woman to be uncovered in the presence of God Almighty.
As I have practiced veiling my hair this week it has made me feel protected in a way I have not known before. It has made me feel cherished by the Lord rather than being thought of as a "second class citizen" in the kingdom.
I had asked the Lord to show me the prophetic picture of the veil in the Old Testament. He reminded me of the story of Rebekah. So, I went back and read the story in Genesis 24. When Rebekah learned from the servant who was escorting her that she was about to meet the man she was betrothed to (Isaac), she took a veil and concealed herself with it.
(Note from David: I agree with Linda. This is an honor, a blessing, and it shows love to the Lord to keep His commandments. You will notice in the verses below something that is not evident in some more careless translations. There is a different Greek word for covering than veil. Plainly stated below, the hair is given for a natural covering, which is to be covered with a veil. If a woman is not veiled she should be shorn. This covering is at least for the purpose of her praying or prophesying in the assembly. Veiling her glory is a sign of submission to her authority.)
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 29, 2008 7:46:18 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 11
What do you think about this verse?
6For 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.
This seems to say if your not going to cover your head than go bald. Either shave your head or cut all your hair off. He goes on to say that this would be dishonering your head if you did this meaning your physical head. So is he saying that it's better off that you dishoner your own physical head than that of your husband or God? Or is he trying to draw attention to the fact that maybe it is very dishonering to your head to the point you might as well just shave it.
These are some questions that I am asking myself. I'm not at all saying this is so and no, you should not go and shave your head.
Joem your quote said:
If this was only pertaining to those in Corinth than the apostle Paul would not have told these women to shave thier head if their head is not covered because according to this quote they would be behaving like men according to the customs of the Corinthians.
The apostle Paul goes on to say "if it is a shame for her to be shorn or shaven". According to what you quoted these women were not bringing glory to God with their head shaven but were doing this to behave as men. If the apostle Paul knew that they were shaving their head to appear as men he would not have said "if it is a shame" knowing that according to what you said it was.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 29, 2008 8:03:52 GMT -5
Veil and Head Coverings By Linda Conner (with additional notes by David Eells)He caused me to understand that the devil had come in and tweaked the emphasis that the church has put on this and made us to think that the whole emphasis is on submission when the emphasis is really how the woman can manifest God's glory (which must be expressed in divine order just as Christ submitted Himself to the Father, even though He is God) rather than her own glory, and thus bring honor to herself and her husband. It was meant as a positive thing for a woman to veil her head rather than a negative thing that it seems to have become. Amen. That's what I am wondering also. I feel uncovered in church when my head is not covered. Last night at the women's bible study we were talking about how in church you get the "shout" but their is no "falling on your face down" and these were the verses used as a reference: Leviticus 9:22-24 22And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings. 23And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people. 24And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces. You get shouting but where is the falling face down? In this teaching women are being taught to practice getting on your face before God. I often wonder how many christians actually get on their faces before God? I don't want to get side tracked but this came to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 29, 2008 8:32:55 GMT -5
By the way, you don't have to wear a sheet over your head. Their are alot of things out there you can buy now. I know of alot of women who are wearing these things and they are not wearing them to cover their head but because they just like them.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Jan 29, 2008 9:28:35 GMT -5
This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of conscience. I just want to provide context. The moment this becomes a matter of doctrine, context is lost. Unless you study 1st century Corinth, you will not have the correct context, which is my point.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 29, 2008 9:47:57 GMT -5
My only concern is... what else from the book of Corinth may not apply to today?
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 29, 2008 9:51:21 GMT -5
This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of conscience. I just want to provide context. The moment this becomes a matter of doctrine, context is lost. Unless you study 1st century Corinth, you will not have the correct context, which is my point. Grace and Peace, Joe I agree, it is a matter of conscience. I believe that is why the apostle Paul said "judge within yourselves is it comely for a woman to pray unto God uncovered?" That is what I think every woman and her husband should ask themselves if she is married before deciding to wear a head covering. Obviously the way women and men dress and behave today is ALOT different then back than which is why sometimes I think we struggle getting the big picture here. Jesse, brought up the issue of bathing suits at one time. I doubt you would ever catch Abrahams wife in one of those! What do you think would happen to Sarah if she was caught walking around in a bathing suit? They would probably say she was either insane or a harlot.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 29, 2008 10:04:24 GMT -5
This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of conscience. I just want to provide context. The moment this becomes a matter of doctrine, context is lost. Unless you study 1st century Corinth, you will not have the correct context, which is my point. Grace and Peace, Joe Jesse, brought up the issue of bathing suits at one time. I doubt you would ever catch Abrahams wife in one of those! What do you think would happen to Sarah if she was caught walking around in a bathing suit? They would probably say she was either insane or a harlot. A matter of fact if a harlot saw Abrahams wife or any other woman for that matter walking around in a bathing suit she would proabably say she was insane or morally depraved!
|
|
|
Post by joem on Jan 29, 2008 13:24:53 GMT -5
My only concern is... what else from the book of Corinth may not apply to today? Josh, I think that these verses still apply, they are just applicable in the given context. This is about abstaining from any appearance of evil so as not to be confused with the Cult of Aphrodite or any other abomination, especially given the reputation for sexual immorality associated with the church in Corinth. This lesson is certainly still applicable today. As far as swimsuits are concerned, I think that culture does play an important role in determining what is acceptable. Native women in S. America go topless, and we don't claim that they are harlots, they are just dressed according to their culture. On the other hand, a woman in N. America wearing a thong at Myrtle Beach would definitely be viewed as a harlot. My wife, kids and I love going to the beach and we all wear modest swimsuits, which are modest by our cultural standards. For those who say that you can't go to the beach and avoid committing adultery with your eyes, don't go. If you can go to the beach and not lust after others, you are free to go. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 29, 2008 13:46:12 GMT -5
Part of my struggle with that passage is to know why some translate 11:16 the way they do. Different versions translate it differently, but I don't understand why.
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. KJV
If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. ESV
But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. NLT
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God. NIV
I think I would translate this clause in bold literally as "we have not this practice."
I don't know why some translations say "no other." To me, there is a world of difference between saying "we have no such custom" and "we have no other custom." When I read "no other custom" it seems like saying "this is what everyone does."
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 29, 2008 13:50:30 GMT -5
Anyways.. I have similar ideas on the topic as you do Joe. EDIT: Well... most of the time. Sometimes I wonder about it. I surely don't think it's a salvation issue..
|
|
|
Post by joem on Jan 29, 2008 14:01:05 GMT -5
Part of my struggle with that passage is to know why some translate 11:16 the way they do. Different versions translate it differently, but I don't understand why. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. KJV If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. ESV But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. NLT If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God. NIV I think I would translate this clause in bold literally as "we have not this practice." I don't know why some translations say "no other." To me, there is a world of difference between saying "we have no such custom" and "we have no other custom." When I read "no other custom" it seems like saying "this is what everyone does." I think you are correct in your translation. "Other" is not in any of the Greek texts I have. I usually find myself agreeing with your insights, as I do in this case. It is a blessing to read your posts. Grace and Peace, Joe edit - I too have struggled with this subject, due mostly to some early writings of the Fathers
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 29, 2008 14:09:47 GMT -5
Yes, they definitely had an opinion on the topic. I once asked about this in a Biblical Greek mailing list. Here is one response I got. TOIAUTOS means "such", not "other". In more natural English, you could render it as "that kind of". Paul is talking about the practice of women praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, which he disagrees with. So he says, "we don't have that kind of custom/practice, nor do the churches of God". I think NASB is trying to help the readers because Paul, in capping off this section of his letter, is jumping back over vv. 14-15 and answering, for himself, the question he posed in v. 13. But they themselves put a marginal note that "other" is literally "such".
|
|
|
Post by openairforce on Jan 29, 2008 15:29:16 GMT -5
This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of conscience. I just want to provide context. The moment this becomes a matter of doctrine, context is lost. Unless you study 1st century Corinth, you will not have the correct context, which is my point. Grace and Peace, Joe WOW this is some really great stuff everyone... I need to do some more studying.... joem or anyone else, can you recommend some good resources to further study Corinth?
|
|