|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 13:28:57 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
I believe verses 13-16 go together as one line of thought. People misinterpret verse 16 at the expense of the fifteen verses before it. Verse 16 does not contradict or nullify the first fifteen verses. Verse 16 is in emphatic agreement with the first fifteen verses.
13 You judge among yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled? 14 Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her instead of a veil. 16 But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the assemblies of God.
I formerly thought that "such a custom" was referring to covering. I don't think it refers to covering at all. The opposite practice of nakedness (not covering) is the matter in question (verse 13). Below, I've substituted the word "nakedness" for "A woman praying to God unveiled".
Why the word nakedness?
- 1) it eliminates the word "not" in "not covering" providing a simplified, non-negative subject (ie. less words, more clear)
- 2) to offset any western cultural bias
Here's a rough analogy for cultural bias: A man looks at a map of the world and memorizes the shape of the continents. A fish looks at a map of the world and memorizes the shape of the oceans. A concave border to the man is a convex border to the fish. The man and the fish would both have to 'take a big step back' to see things the other way.
- 3) I believe that it is an accurate and appropriate word
This is what I understand the passage to be saying: 13 Think about it (on your own): is nakedness a good idea? 14 Obviously 15 not. 16 But if anyone disagrees (saying nakedness IS a good idea), we do not have such a custom (as nakedness)
This message is in perfect agreement with and strongly concludes verses 1-16 as a whole. I do not believe this is twisting the passage but rather untwisting my interpretation.
If the rules of Greek grammar dictate that the word "such" is referring to covering instead of nakedness, then I'm wrong.
ps - thank you for this website and the helpful links
|
|
|
Post by logic on Nov 30, 2008 20:37:42 GMT -5
What does hair represent it 1 Corinth 11:?
We have a different culture which does not have veils for women. We have a culture which does not have standards of length of hair for genders. Verse 16 states that the churches do not have such a custom back then; this means that the consensus of the churches today must matter also. The consensus among the churches today would have nothing about hair legnth or veils, it does not matter at all. Therefore, the length of hair or of covering ones head does not matter for today.
However, if we find out what hair represents in 1Corinth 11:, we may apply this chapter today.
If one wonders about verse :14 Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him? I would stress that even today that men may have long hair but must not "do" their heir as a woman, all styled up and premed, being effeminate looking; ambiguous, blurring the difference between appearance of genders, looking androgynous.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 21:26:58 GMT -5
Hi Logic!
Where in Chapter 11 does it say that hair represents cultural tradition? Paul uses hair as an analogy for the veil.
Our culture does lots of things. That doesn't mean anything.
There is not a an international consensus among professing Christians regarding covering. Most commentaries I've read actually support it. But there could be lots of commentaries that don't. If you can show me how verse 16 says what you think instead of what I think then I'll have to admit I don't understand verse 1-16 correctly.
That's not true unless you mean it should be locally relative. But Paul's statement about ALL the assemblies of God doesn't sound locally relative. The history I've seen on it actually suggests that covering WAS the custom and that would also support that the "such a custom" refers to nakedness, not covering, unveiling, etc.
My impression is that a handful of generations has decided that for themselves. I don't think that makes it true.
I believe we can already apply it. Many people do without even questioning it. Some people just don't want to, in my opinion, or they genuinely think Paul is saying that it doesn't matter.
If you combine that idea with Peter admonition against braided ("done up", styled) hair you would naturally end up with androgyny. We already have androgyny. Do you think all women should use hair spray and highlights to separate the sexes?
I have not seen any indication in verse 1-16 that hair is symbolic in that way. Where in verses 1-15 is it suggested that Paul is trying to get them to conform to cultural norms? Why do you think my understanding of verse 16 is wrong?
Peace, Ben
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 21:50:47 GMT -5
Even at a glance the context of the whole passage is authority and reverence, not cultural relativism.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 1, 2008 15:26:10 GMT -5
Hi Logic! Where in Chapter 11 does it say that hair represents cultural tradition? Paul uses hair as an analogy for the veil. It doesn't say so, but we may conclude it to be so by context. Who in our culture wears a veil? What would one think if someone wore a veil? What would it mean? Sure, it means plenty. Our culture does not wash feet. Our culture does lots of things at night back then, they did things a night for certain purposes. Regarding Nichodemus coming to Jesus at night gas no significance today, but back then t shows that Nichodemus did not want people not find out that he went to see Jesus. What does a veil have relevance with today in America? Yes, they support that women should have worn veils back then for the reason which they represent. But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God It is as you said, "16 But if anyone disagrees (saying nakedness IS a good idea), we do not have such a custom (as nakedness)" However, Paul is using the "custom" of other churches as a back-up to his opinion. His opinion was correct at that time & culture. Veils represent chastity, harlots were unveiled. They also suggest respect and submission to their husbands or father's. No one has any custom in America, not even any of the "churches of God" which are here. 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.Paul uses this for the verse 4 & 5 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors Christ. 5 But every woman that prays or gives an inspired utterance with her head uncovered dishonors her husband or father: for that is one and the same as if she were a harlot. 6 For if the woman refuses to be covered, let her also treated as a harlot (with scorn): This will show her by an example that it is shameful for a woman to be unveiled, for it is virtually the same thing, and she will understand and agree to be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head(, since he is the representative to the glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (if she is honorable and respected). 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (as the order of creation goes) 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (as the reason for creating the woman). 10 For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head because of the angels (no one really knows what this means). 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord (we are not independent of one another). 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman(men are birthed by women); but all things are of God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.You're correct, it isn't "locally relative" but socially. Is it still the custom of the churches of God today? Figure what a veil represents back then & compare what it means today in America. If a woman came to church today in America, we would think she has a Muslim back ground or ethnicity, which would prove the cultural aspect. I would think it does. Customs are not laws, They are long established practice, people give consent to the cutome which gives it authority but not legally. Okay, knowing what a veil meant back then as to not being a harlot, what would a woman wearing a veil accomplish & what would it mean in today's church in our society? The unveiled head would not show anyone that she is looking like, or being a harlot. As long as one does not look like the opposite sex, they would be proper. I wouldn't know how to apply verse 14 any other way in today's society. Furthermore, It is not a sin to have long hair, God commanded the Nazarite to grow his hair with his vow. Because veils have no meaning today as they did back then. It's correct. We might be missing each other here some how With today's society, covering ones head means nothing. How would you think covering your head would dishonor God? How would your wife dishonor you by not covering her head?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 21:02:07 GMT -5
Your Interpretation
The topic of the passage is not prostitution. However, if we find out what hair represents in 1Corinth 11:, we may apply this chapter today... ...what a veil meant back then as to not being a harlot... The passage is not about prostitution. The unveiled head [in America] would not show anyone that she is looking like, or being a harlot. The passage is not about prostitution. harlots were unveiled. They still are. But the passage is not about prostitution.
The message is not just Paul's opinion. However, Paul is using the "custom" of other churches as a back-up to his opinion. His opinion was correct at that time & culture. Paul didn't say it was an opinion.
Paul's reasoning is not based on social/cultural relativity. The consensus among the churches today would have nothing about hair length or veils, it does not matter at all Not socially relative.Because veils have no meaning today as they did back then. Not socially relative. I wouldn't know how to apply verse 14 any other way in today's society. Not socially relative. What does a veil have relevance with today in America? Not socially relative.With today's society, covering ones head means nothing. God also means nothing to today's society. That doesn't make him socially relative only to the early church. Who in our culture wears a veil? Not socially relative. What would one think if someone wore a veil? Not socially relative. No one has any custom in America, not even any of the "churches of God" which are here. Not socially relative. Is it still the custom of the churches of God today? Not socially relative.
Misc stuff I disagreed with 10 For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head because of the angels (no one really knows what this means). Wouldn't matter. Verse 16 states that the churches do not have such a custom back then; this means that the consensus of the churches today must matter also Not Logical If a woman came to church today in America, we would think she has a Muslim back ground or ethnicity, which would prove the cultural aspect. Not Logical. Therefore, the length of hair or of covering ones head does not matter for today. Not Logical.As long as one does not look like the opposite sex, they would be proper. How could it change over time without someone violating your rule? If people from a few generations ago saw us now they would probably think we all look the same. They would probably also think most of the women looked like prostitutes and most of the men like homosexuals. There would be no way for such a dramatic change without the rule you suggested being broken. It's like saying life evolved from nothing.
My Interpretation what would a woman wearing a veil accomplish & what would it mean in today's church in our society?.. ...What would it mean? Veils represent chastity.. ...They also suggest respect and submission to their husbands or father's. Yes, but modern-day America doesn't care about chastity, respect, submission to husbands or fathers, etc. They aren't even taught about it because their parents think it's old fashioned. How would you think covering your head would dishonor God? Christ is the head of man. Man is the image and glory of God. How would your wife dishonor you by not covering her head? Woman is the glory of man. The glory of man should be covered. (Some also think a woman should cover her glory (her hair) for the sake of modesty and dignity. I at least agree that women (and men) would benefit greatly from learning how to keep themselves in modesty and dignity.)
I read it well before I heard that cultural relativity theory that relies on extra-biblical research. I had no problem understanding the passage just the way it read. The concept of prostitution didn't even enter my mind because Paul was clearly spelling out the reasons for the whole thing right there. The only thing that didn't completely click was the phrase "no such custom" but once I realized it was referring to the proposed custom of nakedness it made the whole passage real solid. The passage was never wanting in clarity without the historical research that I later heard. That theory contradicts the plainness of the whole message.
The passage explains itself without having to do research about ancient prostitution just like "The LORD your God is One" explains itself without having to study anthropological views of monotheism.
The overall context is authority not what is appropriate relative to your society. There is no reason in the passage to conclude that what Paul is saying is less than 100% applicable for all times.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 21:28:38 GMT -5
The Angels
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
1Co 11:10 ....the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels.
Eph 3:10 so that now to the rulers and to the authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the manifold wisdom of God,
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 1, 2008 21:56:28 GMT -5
What do you mena by, "Not socially relative"
Are you saying that the vers is not Not socially relative? Or my interpretation Not socially relative?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 22:18:14 GMT -5
the verse the verse has a theme of authority in God's kingdom not a theme of blending in with their culture
sorry it was so repetitive. I had to hack it all up to understand the difference between what we were thinking.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 2, 2008 15:05:06 GMT -5
God has never lost his meaning, the veil has.
Please answer the question.
How so? Paul use the consensus of other church, why is it ilogical for us to do the same?
How so, it is a fact that is what people tend to think.
Not Logical.[/quote]How so? It is true, legnth of air does not matter. God commanded the man who committs to the "Vow of the Nazerite" to grow his hair long, it is not a sin to have long hair for a man.
Good question if it was an original custom from the very beginning. Scriptures regarding Adam and Eve was never spoken of as with veiling Eve; not even Noah's wife.
Your assuming that veiling women is the original custom.
Not in the church.
How did wearing a veil evolve? All God taught Adam & Eve to do was cover their body.
When did covering the head come in?
Different nations, different cultures. With the mixing of cultures comes compromise. Customs are not laws therefore, some are done away with for more practical ones.
You are wrong in that wearing a veil in today's church in our society would accomplish & mean a representation of chastity.
They would not suggest respect and submission to their husbands or father's, because that is not how people would interpret a veil, not in today's church in our society.
Yes, the church today does care about chastity, respect, submission to husbands or fathers, it is being shown in a more practical & different ways.
Why would you care if your wife wore a veil or not? Are you going to adopt a foreign custom, what a veil means from another culture from another time?
This whole chapter is about customs, not laws. Spritual representation, not commands for today. Customs change & there is nothing wrong with that.
Women, today show honor to their husbands & fathers differently. A veil has no relevance today, & there is nothing wrong with it having changed customs.
In this chapter, if a woman is uncovered, she is discounting her subjection to the man in her life. Just as a harlot goes about uncovered, so is she. She is bringing dishonor to her husband &/or her father.
Being covered does not have relevance today as it did in their culture. You can deny that this chapter is has social relativity all you want. We can only apply this chapter with todays customs. However we may aply the spiritual aspect of this chapter for all times and cultures.
My interp was reading it as what an unveiled head of a woman meant back then. I see your spiritual interp as good.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 17:03:53 GMT -5
God has never lost his meaning, the veil has. Even if the whole world says it has that doesn't mean that God says it has.
What does a veil have relevance with today in America? Not socially relative. Please answer the question. It's missing the point. The question should be: "What does a veil have relevance with in God's word?" That would make an excellent title for 1-16. (Not "What does a veil have relevance with in Corinth, America, Timbuktu, etc.?")
Verse 16 states that the churches do not have such a custom back then; this means that the consensus of the churches today must matter also Not Logical How so? Paul use the consensus of other church, why is it ilogical for us to do the same? It does matter, but not in the way you were saying. If the consensus is the foundational reason (which it's not, it's an emphasis to Paul's command) then the fundamental reason has been violated when people disobeyed. Unless the entire church in one day all decided to switch their consensus with a unanimous vote, implying that the consensus is a primary foundation to the argument doesn't make sense.
If a woman came to church today in America, we would think she has a Muslim back ground or ethnicity, which would prove the cultural aspect. Not Logical How so, it is a fact that is what people tend to think. That's true people think that but it doesn't logically prove there's a "cultural aspect" to the primary reasons behind Paul's argument.
It is true, legnth of air does not matter. God commanded the man who committs to the "Vow of the Nazerite" to grow his hair long, it is not a sin to have long hair for a man. God commanded men to sacrifice animals. Does that make it ok for you? Are you allowed to offer a bull as a burnt offering? How about circumcising yourself with a rock? Is that honorable? In the old testament the veil was over the face of Moses. Christ, the head of man, was not yet revealed, uncovered, etc. I wasn't under the impression that the Nazerite vow remained in the new testament for Christians.
As long as one does not look like the opposite sex, they would be proper. How could it change over time without someone violating your rule? Good question if it was an original custom from the very beginning. Scriptures regarding Adam and Eve was never spoken of as with veiling Eve; not even Noah's wife. Your assuming that veiling women is the original custom.
Gen 24:64 And Rebekah lifted her eyes and she saw Isaac. And she dismounted from the camel. Gen 24:65 And she said to the slave, Who is this man walking in the field to meet us? And the slave said, It is my master. And she took the veil and covered herself. (1851 BC?)
Num 5:18 And the priest shall cause the woman to stand before Jehovah, and shall uncover the woman's head, and shall give into her hand the food offering of memorial; it is a food offering of jealousy; and in the priest's hand shall be the bitter waters which cause the curse. (1446 BC?)
Son 5:7 The ones watching who went about the city found me and struck me; they wounded me; those keeping the walls lifted my veil from me. (950 BC?)
Isa 47:1 Go down and sit on the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the earth; a throne is not to the daughter of the Chaldeans; for they shall not again call you tender and delicate. Isa 47:2 Take millstones and grind meal; uncover your veil; strip off the skirt; uncover the leg; pass over rivers. Isa 47:3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered; yea, your shame shall be seen. (750-700 BC?)
1Co 11:10 because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels. (50 AD?)
The dates aren't really the point. It's the example of the scripture. There are a lot of better ways he could've written that passage if he was trying to back it up with the reasons you suggested. Paul says right there in the first 15 verses where he gets his reasoning from. Then in verse 16 he puts the nail in the coffin of any disagreement.
You are wrong in that wearing a veil in today's church in our society would accomplish & mean a representation of chastity. They would not suggest respect and submission to their husbands or father's, because that is not how people would interpret a veil, not in today's church in our society. How people interpret things does not define what they represent before God. Some people take "This is my body. Take it and eat." to represent cannibalism. That doesn't mean it actually represents that. Some people act like curse words don't represent anything or that using Jesus' name as a curse is meaningless. It doesn't make it meaningless.
Why would you care if your wife wore a veil or not? Are you going to adopt a foreign custom, what a veil means from another culture from another time? The questions should be "Why does God care?" and "Are we going to adopt His ways?"
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 5, 2008 13:39:24 GMT -5
God has never lost his meaning, the veil has.Even if the whole world says it has that doesn't mean that God says it has. How would the people who don't know God have the same meaning of a veil as God does? We should speak in their language for them to understand. Use what th veil means in their own language. The meaning of a veil is "hiding" as in ones glory. Men shouldn't hide the glory of God but should hide their own so God's will have the prevalence. In other words, we must decrees while increes the Name of Jesus in all that He said and done. How do we get America to change their meaning of the veil, so that if we start waring them, they will know what it means, without them thinking it's some kind of oppression of women as we think the muslims do by making their women ware veils? Or keep them from thining we are some kind of cult by changing customes like the Amish. Okay. How does it not prove if it is not the same in other cultures. You can't just change the meaning of a veil and think the whole culture will follow. www.nazarite.com/www.pursuingtheword.com/reproach.htmNumbers 6:1-21
1 Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD,
3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes.
4 'All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.
5 'All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.
6 'All the days of his separation to the LORD he shall not go near to a dead person.
7 'He shall not make himself unclean for his father or for his mother, for his brother or for his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head.
8 'All the days of his separation he is holy to the LORD. Obstaining from wine and strong drink is the concept of morning and aflicting yourself. In prayer and fasting, dwell on the sorrows of our Lord. No razor shall pass over his head is the concept of Total sepration to God. Not committting yourself to anything outside of prayer, His Word, the Service and ministering to the church family...ect... Not go near to a dead person is the concept of staying away as much as you can humanily posible from the unsaved and their influances. In order to do this you would need atleast a week or more a vacation time from work. True, but it still means what it means to the general public. The problem lies with the general public and their definitions, not the Church. We are to be a witness, but if we speak a diferent language than the culture, our witness is usless. Why would you care if your wife wore a veil or not? Are you going to adopt a foreign custom, what a veil means from another culture from another time?The questions should be "Why does God care?" and "Are we going to adopt His ways?"[/quote]We the church could, but our witness to that will be irrelevant, missunderstood and uneffective to the public.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 5, 2008 19:45:05 GMT -5
God has never lost his meaning, the veil has.Even if the whole world says it has that doesn't mean that God says it has. How would the people who don't know God have the same meaning of a veil as God does? We should speak in their language for them to understand. Use what the veil means in their own language.You're thinking of it as a tool for evangelism but that's not the primary reason Paul gives. It certainly could be a tool for evangelism in this country where it stands out more and would probably give people the opportunity to answer questions about their faith. The meaning of a veil is "hiding" as in ones glory. Men shouldn't hide the glory of God but should hide their own so God's will have the prevalence. In other words, we must decrees while increes the Name of Jesus in all that He said and done.Yes. Paul says one way we should do that. How do we get America to change their meaning of the veil,Same way we "get" them to change their meaning of human sexuality. so that if we start waring them, they will know what it means,They'll know. without them thinking it's some kind of oppression of women as we think the muslims do by making their women ware veils?Rebels always call authority oppression. Or keep them from thining we are some kind of cult by changing customes like the Amish.The amish didn't change customes. I don't follow any group who goes by a name other than Christ. Mr Amish and Menno Simons are not to be followed, only the Lord Jesus. But in this respect the Amish have acted with honor, in that they have not been easily swayed by our ungodly culture regarding fashion. You can't just change the meaning of a veil and think the whole culture will follow.But that's exactly what has happened. Are we going to adopt His ways? We the church could, but our witness to that will be irrelevant,God's ways are never irrelevant. misunderstoodToo late for that. and uneffective to the public.That depends on "the public". But like I said it's not simply a tool for evangelism. That's not the primary focus in the passage. I think detrimental to the church to ignore this passage. I believe that the people who have formulated this idea of it being irrelevant are probably people who dislike authority. I don't mean you. I'm talking about the divinity graduates who make a career out of the scripture. I don't know what else is on this website but it has a good in depth examination of the passage and arguments for and against and a timeline of history regarding the veil. www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htmI also believe that forsaking the use of the veil has had an impact of the divorce rate among professing christians. It goes hand in hand with "feminism" which, among other things, has hit our country like a five ton bomb. I watched a show on TV once about a civillian massacre in China where the military had mowed down a bunch of protesters. The students at the university where the event had started only a few decades earlier did not even know much (if anything) about the event. Google, Yahoo, and other search engine companies got busted by our government because they had agreed with the Chinese government to filter content that would allow the Chinese public to know what had happened. It is a good example of how duped people can be by assuming that the way things are presented to them by their culture is an acceptable norm. I think it is a very (spiritually) beautiful thing and I believe that is exactly why God ordained it and why Paul expounded on it.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 5, 2008 22:40:10 GMT -5
You know I actualy see what your saying, but I know that it will never happen.
I agree with you and all that, however, if through all the revivels that has come & gone with no one being convicted about it, and it still has not come about even outside of any revivles, it is most doubtful to start now. I asked my wife and she wouldn't either.
The way I see it, if God realy wanted it to continue until now through out the world's Christian Churches, He would have kept it on His peoples hearts to cary on the tradition/custome. He would have made the concept more prevalent through out the New Testement scriptures instead of having just one passage in the entirety of it all which seems to be cultural.
It all comes down to the convictions of ones heart. 1Corinth 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? I would say, not any more. I don't see it as all that improtant compared to the more weighty things. I don't have a conviction about it. I still do think it is cultural and there is nothing wrong with that.
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. :2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. There is no commandment for veils, it is only a custom/tradition.
Paul says, "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you"(1Corinth 11:2 ), there is no instance were he did to anyone else but them, and only brining up the fact that he did to the Corinthians.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2008 1:00:30 GMT -5
You know I actually see what your saying, I'm borrowing this line from you "If you understood you would agree" but I know that it will never happen. You're getting caught up on other people. What does it matter whether other people obey? Jesus says "You follow me."
I agree with you and all that, You must not understand a lot of what I've been saying if you think you agree with me. however, if through all the revivals that has come & gone with no one being convicted about it, where do you get that idea from? and it still has not come about even outside of any revivles, What are you taking about? There are plenty of women who are obedient in this. Where do you expect to see them? on TV? at a club? it is most doubtful to start now. It never stopped in the first place. All that's happened is that a couple of generations have been told it don't matter. Just like they were told all sorts of things don't matter. I asked my wife and she wouldn't either.
The way I see it, if God realy wanted it to continue until now through out the world's Christian Churches, He would have kept it on His peoples hearts to cary on the tradition/custome. What do you think I'm doing! It IS on my heart. It's not like I grew up Amish. Also it has been carried on until very recently in the countries which have recently morally degenerated to a whole new degree like America.
He would have made the concept more prevalent through out the New Testament scriptures instead of having just one passage in the entirety of it all which seems to be cultural. The law required the wife to be covered which I showed you. You want an entire chapter devoted to head covering? The history of the professing church testifies that we are the oddballs, not them. A woman's hair is romantically attractive to a man. Why should she be showing it to the whole world? Look around you. Woman's hair is one the MOST glorified objects in our society. More than EVER it ought to be covered. It has become an idol. Please be willing to consider that the reasons Paul gives for it are not cultural at all but are permanent reasons that exist unchangingly like the sun and the moon. It all comes down to the convictions of ones heart. I could say that about a lot of things. Some people say that about "turn the other cheek" 1Corinth 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? If you look closely at the entire passage you will see that Paul is not actually leaving it up to them to decide at all. That is a misunderstanding of that verse. 1Co 11:13 You judge among yourselves: Similar to 1Co 10:15 "I speak as to prudent ones; you judge what I say. " "Think about it. Have understanding. Know what is right and what is wrong." 1Co 11:3 "But I want you to know.." Philemon 1:8-9 "Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you."
I would say, not any more. I don't see it as all that improtant compared to the more weighty things. There was a professional wrestler called "the rock" and he used to say something like this: "it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what the rock thinks" I don't have a conviction about it. I still do think it is cultural and there is nothing wrong with that. Anything that's in disagreement with God's ways is wrong.
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. :2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. There is no commandment for veils, it is only a custom/tradition. It's right in front of you. I do not understand how any person can read 1-16 and not see it plain as day. There is nothing "cultural" about the passage. The entire church followed it as a command until what... a hundred years ago or so? Even the orthodox church has followed it for 2000 years. Our practice is the glitch in the tradition. If it were relative that would be reason to change in itself.
Paul says, "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you"(1Corinth 11:2 ), there is no instance were he did to anyone else but them, and only bringing up the fact that he did to the Corinthians. Are you going to suggest that the angels were only Corinthian angels? The other churches were obeying, only Corinth wasn't. That's why Paul had to write to them about it. Isn't the evidence is right in the passage?
I don't see any solid reason to believe that it's ok to interpret it as you have. Does it seem to you that I am understanding the reasons you've been giving? Have my responses been relevant?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 6, 2008 11:54:06 GMT -5
Veils are not law, but custome.
Rom 10:5 For Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, That the man who does those things shall live by them. If you MUST keep this as a law, then you must be circumcised also.
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been openly set forth, crucified among you? :2 This only would I learn of you, did you received the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
There is liberty in Christ 2Corinth 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (I would include veils in this) :17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2008 14:07:00 GMT -5
You haven't provided a solid reason out of the passage itself that allows you to lump it in with dietary customs and holy days.
Instead the passage itself provides reasons why you can't just do that with it.
It sounds like you're just saying "No. I don't want to. Nobody else does it."
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 6, 2008 16:39:11 GMT -5
You haven't provided a solid reason out of the passage itself that allows you to lump it in with dietary customs and holy days. Instead the passage itself provides reasons why you can't just do that with it. It sounds like you're just saying "No. I don't want to. Nobody else does it." Jamess 2:8 If you fulfill the royal law (the Ten Commandments) according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well: Mat 22:36-40 James 2:12 So speak, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.If one does not abide by the CUSTOM/TRADITION of the veil, there is nothing wrong with it, because it is not a sin to not be veiled. It was never a command. If my wife weares a veil, but dishonors me in any other way, that vail would mean nothing. I'd rather her honor me in the more practical ways which truly tell me that she honors me. If it was something to be kept, there would surely be more promenant in Scriptures that tell us to keep that tradition, it is not a moral issue.. I keep the tradition of the Lord's Supper, however, if I never did that either, it is nothing d@mnable. If it was truly a sin, I would definatly follow the custom/tradition and it would not be called a custom/tradition, but called a major salvation issue.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2008 17:54:35 GMT -5
Are we starting to go in circles?
The passage couldn't really be any more clear. There's no room to decide for yourself whether it's relevant or important.
If my wife wears a veil, but dishonors me in any other way, that vail would mean nothing. I'd rather her honor me in the more practical ways which truly tell me that she honors me. What kind of reasoning is that? How about if my wife yells at me that's fine as long as she doesn't cheat on me? As long as we do the important things we can forget about the rest? That's treating the word of God subjectively.
The Lord's Supper is not optional. Since when are God's commands optional? If you deliberately refused to not do something the Lord Jesus instituted and commanded you would ALREADY be condemned because of unbelief. It would simply be and outward expression of a rebellious heart.
I think there's a bigger point that is being missed here. Paul says we should do it. He says every man, every woman. The reasons he gives are not local reasons. He doesn't say "because of the corinthian angels."
It was clearly commanded and not optional. There is no suggestion that it is merely a custom/tradition. I believe you are calling it that unjustifiably.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 6, 2008 23:40:28 GMT -5
If my wife wears a veil, but dishonors me in any other way, that vail would mean nothing. I'd rather her honor me in the more practical ways which truly tell me that she honors me.What kind of reasoning is that? How about if my wife yells at me that's fine as long as she doesn't cheat on me? As long as we do the important things we can forget about the rest? That's treating the word of God subjectively. Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profits, if you keep the law: but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision. :26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keeps the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?In other words: For covering a womans head verily profits, if you honor your husband in all things: but if you dishonor your husband in otherthings, the covered head is made to be uncovered. Therefore if the woman who uncovered her head honors her husband in the practical things which actualy matter, shall not her uncoveredness be counted for as covered? Honor to me is not covereing my wifes head, that which honors me is when she honors/respects me in ways that actualy matter to me, the practical things. In 1Corinth 11, the veil is not a law of God, but a social, cultural custom/tradition, you can not persuade me otherwaise. There is no law or commandment about it, therfore I see no problem dismissing it as I do raising my hands in chusrch (Psalm 134:2 & Psalm 134.2). I don't even sing in church when I attend the worship service before the teaching. No one is sinning against God when they don't follow the tradition of the veil, they would only be sinning against their husband, only if he cared. If it was sinning against God Himself, it would be a law & not only a costom/tradition. Sins are against God shown by His law. Men have customes/traditions and who cares if you violate a custom/tradition that no one practices?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 1:32:46 GMT -5
In 1Corinth 11, the veil is not a law of God, but a social, cultural custom/tradition, you can not persuade me otherwaise.
Why do you say it is not a law of God but a "social, cultural custom/tradition"? There are writings of Paul's where he specifically says that something is a concession or optional. Do you see anything in this passage that shows that to be the case about the veil?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 7, 2008 10:47:33 GMT -5
There are writings of Paul's where he specifically says that something is a concession or optional. Do you see anything in this passage that shows that to be the case about the veil? Yes, that it being only a custom/tradition & not a law/command. #5 of 10: 'Honor your father and your mother.' Honor - kabed in Heberw menas "to make weighty" 2Co 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; Honor is to give worth in other words. I don't see any worth in a woman covering her head. Sure, it's in ONE whole pasage in the New Testement as only a custom/tradition, but NOT a law/comdand. Pauls was telling those in corinth to act in the proper edicate of the day, but it is no longer for today. You talk like Paul is making a new law for the church; the veil for a woman, but he isn't. The lesson of this whole passage is that we must not defy existing social usages in such a way as to bring reproach on the church. Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, :12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live sensibly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; :13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;If you agree that the Holy Spirit is out Teacher & Leader, would you agree that HE wouldn't let HIS Church refrain from shuch an important LAW as this if it were as such?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 14:22:43 GMT -5
Would the Holy Spirit allow it to fall out of usage? Of course not. True obedience to God has fallen out of usage. It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit allowed it. Regardless of who thinks they are the church or not, Paul and the Holy Spirit saw fit to record this passage and preserve it for two thousand years. So here is your wake-up call if you want to look at it that way. If the Corinthians needed further instruction on it then why wouldn't you or other people today? Paul and the Holy Spirit anticipated the instruction/reminder would be met with contention just like it is today.
More importantly though, you repeated your theory but you didn't address my question.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Dec 8, 2008 13:14:17 GMT -5
I've been studying this at length, and found the context, per the Fathers, disturbs me. It is definitely talking about head coverings in the form of a veil.
Clement
"Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."
Tertullian
"Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches keep their virgins covered. In fact, this practice is followed in certain places beneath this African sky. So let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and barbarians."
As for the context, according to Clement and Tertullian, the Early Church universally agreed on head coverings for women, just not on the specifics. I have made a good case against head coverings in the past, but may have to reconsider it. I don't think we can be dogmatic about coverings, but may need to take a harder look at them.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 8, 2008 16:40:33 GMT -5
Hi Joe and Logic,
I don't think there's any doubt about it. I've seen quotes like those too. If I had a wife who honored God and her husband by dressing right I would be a happy man. Look at what an idol the glory of woman has become in our society and look at the state of things.
"Keep your beautiful hair for your husband." That's what I think God wants to teach us. A woman's hair is a special part of her. It is romantically attractive without a doubt. Just like a woman's bosom, legs, etc. I've seen young girls showing off their bodies like they think it's nothing. It makes me cry to know that I've seen parts of them that I was not supposed to see. Those are parts of their bodies that have special purposes and are not for strangers' eyes. I think a woman's hair is like that too.
I also realized that a modest woman would put lustful, dishonorable men to shame. They would be convicted in their dishonorable un-manliness by a woman of virtue.
Look at all the pictures of Jesus' mother Mary. They've usually got her head covered in the pictures. I think that's just what Paul is saying is proper for Godly women. That it is part of modesty and piety that women are to express outwardly.
Peace
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 8, 2008 21:27:05 GMT -5
Head covering/veils dod not start from the church, but society. Those outside the church practiced it also. If it did start from the church, you might have an argument. However, since it originated from society & the church adopted it as appropriate, it is not wrong to loose the custom if that which it originated from discontinues it also.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 4:59:23 GMT -5
The church did not adopt the veil. It was born with it. The Lord Jesus built his church with it. Paul's teaching is based on God's ordering of His kingdom. None of the cultural argument properly esteems the reasons that Paul gives for not disregarding the veil. It's also completely founded on non-biblical speculation and postulation as far as I can tell. The passage interprets itself. It doesn't require any knowledge of ancient culture or modern culture in any country. I think someone could grow up in the middle of the woods and find this passage and understand that it is a clear universal imperative.
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. You couldn't possibly come up with a weightier foundation for this teaching. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the customs of unbelievers are. This statement is the foundational premise to the entire argument. If this is merely a cultural consideration then Paul will have to build an argument for consideration, conscience, etc. from a foundation of the hierarchy of God's kingdom. In other words Paul would have to show that God's structure of authority is a good reason to conform to changing customs of the world.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head shames his head. The words "every man" end the argument. It is so clear that Paul could have said "every man.....shames his head because Christ is the head of every man." The connection between "every man" (pas aner) in verse 3 and in verse 4 is unmistakable in my opinion. The reason a man should not have his head covered when talking TO or FOR God is because Jesus Christ is the head of every man.
Right away the possibility of a smooth transition from the hierarchy of authority to a cultural consideration is destroyed by this simple reasoning. Christ is man's head therefore man should not cover his head. (unless it's cold out or too sunny and you're not praying or prophesying) There is absolutely nothing about cultural consideration and Paul has already bridged the gap between the foundational premise of authority to the outward manifestation that should be obeyed. It's already too late for the cultural argument.
1Co 11:5 And every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled dishonors her head, for it is the same as being shaved. "Every woman." He doesn't say "every one of your women" or "every women among you". Just every woman. A woman with no veil is like a bald woman. This is obviously dishonorable, shameful, contrary to nature, etc. The reason woman should cover her head is to honor her head which is man. If she doesn't cover her head it is like being bald. A woman with no veil is like a bald woman. The reason is that the man is the head of a woman. Therefore if she has no authority on her head it is exactly as if she is bald.
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled. It's better for a woman to be bald than to not wear a veil. If she won't wear the veil then let her be bald. Since this is obviously shameful she should wear the veil.
1Co 11:7 For truly a man ought not to have the head covered, being the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man; Paul already said a man shouldn't have his head covered. Now he's saying it twice. "...truly...ought not to..." Here's a similarly non-cultural reason given for the same outward practice. So far that's two spiritual reasons and zero cultural reasons. There are two facets to the second reason.
Should the image and glory of God be covered? No.
Should the glory of man be covered? Yes.
1Co 11:8 for man is not of the woman, but woman of man; "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone" Woman is after man, woman is the glory of man, woman is under man's authority.
1Co 11:9 for also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man; "it is not good for man to be alone" Woman's purpose is to serve man according to God's will.
1Co 11:10 because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels. Woman was not made for angels to lust after, she was made for man and man is for God. [And] now the manifold wisdom of God [should] be made known to the rulers and to the authorities in the heavenlies through the assembly. [That Christ is the head of every man and His body the temple of God,] to [whom] be the glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages. To God be the glory in His temple. Therefore the glory of God should be uncovered and the glory of man covered. (Gen 6; Eph 3)
1Co 11:11 However, man is not apart from woman, nor woman apart from man, in the Lord. 1Co 11:12 For as the woman is out of the man, so also the man through the woman; but all things are from God. The submission of the woman to the man is not ultimately to glorify man but to glorify God. Man's glory should be covered in modesty.
1Co 11:13 You judge among yourselves: Paul calls on many witnesses but not one of them is the customs of the unbelievers:
1) Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
2) Man is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man.
3) Because of the angels.
4) Their own consent/judgment.
5) The testimony of nature.
6) The unanimous practice of the churches of God.
is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled? This is rhetorical, but not just fluff. He wants them to consider it and understand what he's saying. He could've just said "No veils? No hair." or "Get with the program" but that's not the way God wants to run things.
"Is it fitting?" It means this: It is not fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled.
"Fitting" is the same word used in these verses: Mat 3:15 But answering, Jesus said to him, Allow it now, for it is becoming to us this way to fulfill all righteousness. Then he allows Him. Eph 5:3 But let not fornication, and all uncleanness, or greediness, be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 1Ti 2:10 but what becomes women professing fear of God, through good works. Tit 2:1 But you speak things which become sound doctrine: The message is: Do things that are fitting. Do not do things which are not fitting.
1Co 11:14 Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? Even if I don't understand why, I can be assured that the answer is Affirmative. I didn't understand it at first and I'm sure there's more I could understand about it. But it's impossible to ignore that the answer he's looking for is YES. It is a dishonor for a man to wear long hair. I learned this one when I was a kid. Boys have short hair - Girls have long hair. Then when I became disobedient, rebellious, and morally corrupt I grew my hair long.
1Co 11:15 But if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her instead of a veil. In other words, she should really have a veil. Even the natural use of hair says so. Paul has appealed to five witnesses up to this point and not a single one is conformity to the world's customs. The first three reasons are not even capable of being altered by human beings nor do they change with time.
1Co 11:16 But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the assemblies of God. Even though he presented it with such language as to gently involve them in the train of thought rather than bluntly command them, they are still not left without a firm judgment to settle any disputes.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 23:40:51 GMT -5
This is what a woman's long hair would say if it could talk:
"I'm supposed to be covered with a veil." (verse 15)
: )
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 10, 2008 8:53:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 10, 2008 13:49:54 GMT -5
It is only a [glow=red,2,300]CUSTOME/TRADITION[/glow] not a law!
This is why I have no conviction about it.
(I'm not yelling by the large, capitalized, glowing words)
I would say this ius finished because we will not persuade each other.
|
|