I have no idea. I just had not heard anything like what you were saying. It sounds like, and I could just be misunderstanding you, that some scripture is relevant to today and others are kind of filler material that aren't relevant.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
There is relevance because I know of denominations that follow this as if Paul delivered it personally to them. They get very contentious about it if you disagree with then. I believe that to be the same problem Paul was dealing with.
Again read and study vs 16.
I maybe way off. I've look at it from several different angles and I come back to vs 16.
I really don't know. When I read vs 16 I can see it both ways. What if it means that what he has just described is how it is in all the other churches and the Corinthians are who ilhe is aiming to bring into line.
Paul had already delivered the apostolic teaching to all these churches to establish them. He then writes all these letters to correct misunderstandings that have arisen in his absence. The end of the previous chapter seemed to also say this.
Then he starts in with any man or any woman. I am not seeing any language like among you or any indication of a break that this section is only for men and women at Corinth.
This has never been an area, head coverings, I have given much thought. Mostly considered it a pious practice. Probably because I am a guy so I don't have to answer for it
I see what you are saying.
Have you studied the history surrounding this event, and why he's addressing this issue?
I've looked it up, and when I've got more time I'll post what I've found.
But what is verse 16 responding to? It looks like V16 is responding to V 13 with two intervening verses that give an example that even, apart from the special covering in worship, women are naturally covered.
So effectively, Paul is saying that no church of God has the custom of women praying with their heads uncovered. In v16 Paul answers the question he asked in v13. You really can't take that answer back to any other verse.
As for their hair alone being sufficient cover, verse 6 eliminates that possiblity: "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:" If the hair was the covering and she was not covered, then she already would have been shorn.
The whole book(s) of Corinthians is tricky to read without understanding about what was going on in that church (which was a hot mess) - there was all sorts of social strife between the rich and poor. An example is the Lord's Supper - you had the rich showing up at church early and eating everything before the working class got off work. (the latter part of ch. 11)
Then you have pagan and Roman culture infiltrating things...
Do I fully understand it all? No way. But I do know enough that the text needs to be carefully interpreted in the light if the culture context in which is it was written and read.
Normally I'd say that not everything that is descriptive is prescriptive, but that doesn't work here as Paul is making a clear commandment to the church at Corinth. So, the question that arises is that a commandment to them in their situation, or to all of us some 2000 years later and 2000+ miles away? And if it's not a commandment to us, what can we take from this? (All scripture is suitable for learning, dontchaknow?)
A couple of things that perplex me: (A) why don't I see anything like this in any other passages in the Bible? (B) What's the point?
On that latter question, What purpose does the head covering serve? Christianity isn't a rules-based religion like Islam, Judaism or Mormonism, so why this rule? It seems out of place. How does this glorify God? In a modern context I really don't see it as anything other than a subjugation of women. Perhaps you can argue that it is part of the larger complementarianism, but as a Baptist, we do do just fine in holding women in their place without it (e.g. the recent kerfuffle with Saddleback and the SBC).
I think that Pentecostals and others that ascribe to this are more simply during it out of fundamentalism - the text says, we'll do it. ...which is one reason I'm not a fan of fundamentalism - forgiving for saying this, but in way ways it requires you to check your brain at the door. While I agree with early fundamentalists' push back against enlightenment, I do tend to think they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they eschewed formalized theological learning.
I'm going to have delve more into this later, but the first commentary I read suggest this is more about lust - 1st century shouldn't show up in church without covered hair, the same way a woman shouldn't wear a miniskirt to church today.
Then you have pagan and Roman culture infiltrating things...
Do I fully understand it all? No way. But I do know enough that the text needs to be carefully interpreted in the light if the culture context in which is it was written and read.
Normally I'd say that not everything that is descriptive is prescriptive, but that doesn't work here as Paul is making a clear commandment to the church at Corinth. So, the question that arises is that a commandment to them in their situation, or to all of us some 2000 years later and 2000+ miles away? And if it's not a commandment to us, what can we take from this? (All scripture is suitable for learning, dontchaknow?)
A couple of things that perplex me: (A) why don't I see anything like this in any other passages in the Bible? (B) What's the point?
On that latter question, What purpose does the head covering serve? Christianity isn't a rules-based religion like Islam, Judaism or Mormonism, so why this rule? It seems out of place. How does this glorify God? In a modern context I really don't see it as anything other than a subjugation of women. Perhaps you can argue that it is part of the larger complementarianism, but as a Baptist, we do do just fine in holding women in their place without it (e.g. the recent kerfuffle with Saddleback and the SBC).
I think that Pentecostals and others that ascribe to this are more simply during it out of fundamentalism - the text says, we'll do it. ...which is one reason I'm not a fan of fundamentalism - forgiving for saying this, but in way ways it requires you to check your brain at the door. While I agree with early fundamentalists' push back against enlightenment, I do tend to think they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they eschewed formalized theological learning.
I'm going to have delve more into this later, but the first commentary I read suggest this is more about lust - 1st century shouldn't show up in church without covered hair, the same way a woman shouldn't wear a miniskirt to church today.
Last edited:
We are dealing with an issue that is really not of relevance for the body of believers today.
I'll tell you why so bear with me a little.
This is a secondary, third or fourth way down the list, but people for many they put it at the forefront, and that is wrong. It's unbiblical, and it really, and I'm going to be blunt, and direct. It shows a spiritual issue within a person.
I mean people get angry if you don't agree with them on this view. Why? Especially when dealing with this part of the scripture.
I have dealt with people, and I'm not exaggerating. I've had this conversation with many individuals over the years, and every time people get upset, they get angry, they bring to this issue so much emotion, and I don't understand why. It's not a big deal.
Notice what Paul says, and I think it's so relevant these words. He says, and this is kind of a summary statement about the this issue.
Verse 16 explained...
But if a certain one thinks, and it's a consideration, and the next word is the word two Greek words the first is Philo. Philo is one of the three primary Greek words for love.
This is likings something being affectionate of something. Not necessarily in a loving way like husband, and wife, but having strong feelings for.
Now the second word is a word for strife, or contention, and there are people, and they love strife. They love contention.
There are people who sit around doing nothing not really paying attention. Then some issue comes up that's kind of a hot issue. These people are contentious, they're arguing these two different views, and they just love to get involved in this, and make matters worse. Kinda stir up the pot even more. They like that. Now that kind of person is not pleasing to God. That isn't what a Christian should aspire to.
Now what does Paul say here in verse 16.
It's not to hard to interpret these words in verse 16.
Go through it very literally. By the way the word but which is the Greek word deh is in the second place meaning its the second word of the text. The word deh can never appear first. It's always in a phrase it's a second word. But translated to English It's first.
Paul says But if a certain one want peace Greek word dokei seems to be a lover of contention or a lover of strife.
What does Paul say. We such custom we do not have. He says nor the churches of God.
I believe this is easy to understand. What Paul is saying is this. I'm giving you instructions. However, if anyone wants to be contentious about this then tell them we do not have such custom. We who are we? The apostles of Jesus.
We're not teaching this as we go church to church we haven't received this as a mandate for believers in other churches.
The churches of God or ekklēsiai those called out. The congregations of God we don't have any customs such as this.
So what we have here is an issue instruction that Paul is giving on this issue at the Corinth church or congregation of those the called out.
Bear with me I'll get to why shortly.
There is no mandate. He isn't saying needs to be followed by all of of the congregations of God. It's quite the contrary. Paul says this issue that is so important to some of you it's not relevant by us the apostles or the other congregations of God.
Regardless where one stands on the covering. We have a liberty and freedom to wear or not to wear. It is not a spiritual consideration.
There are also secondary coverings. I'll get to that later.
Verse 1
Imitators of me be just as also I of Christ
Verse 2
But I praise you brethren because you are remembering me just as I have delivered to you the teachings you are keeping
Verse 3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ but the head of every woman is man and the head of Christ is God
Here is where we begin. This is talking about Submissiveness, and Paul is saying here men you are called to be Submissive to Christ. Women and this means wives you are called to be Submissive to your husband. Notice the example Paul used is Christ because he was Submissive to God his father.
Now Notice something.
Is Christ less than God? No he isn't. Remember the scripture says that he didn't consider equality with God a thing to grasp a thing to take hold of. Why?
He had it already he's equal. So you can be equal, but still be Submissive.
This shows a God ordained order for peoples lives. This also shows that being Submissive doesn't make you lesser of a human being.
Notice Paul has given this instruction long before he starts dealing with the issue coming up.
Notice
The head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband a man, and the head of Christ is God. God is the head of all.
Now some believe that the following is actually talking about a secondary object like a Kippah, or a scarf, or a hat, or some secondary coverings. It's about the primary coverings, and the primary covering is of the body.
We're going to see the emphasis is on hair, and what to do with it.
It's important to know that we are in an epistle that is written to believers in Corinth.
We already saw in verse 16 already since we jumped ahead for a moment that there is nothing being discussed here that is relevant for all believers, or all congregations. Paul said quite emphatically that this is not from the apostles we have no tradition such as this. Nor do the churches of God the congregations.
So it's relevant for this congregation and only this one.
Now there maybe other places in the world this is relevant a similar issue in a congregation with similar customs.
However, when we deal with the limitations of the text. It is relevant for this congregation of believers in Corinth.
Now we need to talk about some cultural and background issues.
Corinth was a very immoral city. Immoral in many different ways especially sexually.
Secondly realize something else. There were numerous prostitutes in Corinth. It was a port city and I'll not go into describing why a port city and prostitution why that went hand in hand.
Now the issue.
Women of propriety in that day and age in Corinth they would wear their hair up on top of their head covering their head.
Women who were prostitutes, or women of no modesty of impropriety. Not a prostitute but not a woman of modesty, integrity mortality or ethics.
These women would wear their hair down.
What Paul is dealing with here you'll see just keep reading.
Many people were getting saved turning their life around in Corinth. Many prostitutes, and women of impropriety were getting saved. God was working in Corinth.
These newly saved women wanted to participate with the Corinth Christian congregation. Sometimes God would give them a prophetic word.
What Paul was dealing with here is a cultural concern.
Today we see a woman with long flowing hair we don't think anything about it. Don't say that woman is not modest, no integrity, she must be a prostitute. We don't say things like that because it would not be true.
When we see a woman with their hair up we don't say that's a woman is modest, and full of integrity. It's not part of our cultural norms.
So what we are seeing in this portion of Scripture is not relevant to all congregations, cultural etc.
Now I hope that when you read this you will give a second thought about what you think you knew or believed to be correct. Give it a good think through pray on it and hopefully this will help people be not so judgmental, and thinking you have spiritual superiority over someone else.
Remember where we began Submissiveness.
Make yourself in subjection to godly leadership. Those who truly love and follow the Bible, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit above all.
Verse 4
Every man praying or prophesying kata kephalēn echōn that means having the head down.
It's not speaking about your head being bowed. Kata means down and the implication If every man who prays or prophesies with something coming down on his head he dishonors his head.
What does that mean? Hes not showing subjection he's not being Submissive.
So every man who prays or prophesies having on his head down or not in Submission to God. and the word covering doesn't appear in the Textus Receptus here.
Verse 5
But every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered she her head
So we see differences between men and women based upon this instruction that's relevant for this congregation.
Paul says a man who prays or prophesies, and the implication is with something on his head what? Well get to that shortly. It says he dishonors his head.
But a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered this woman dishonors her head.
So two different teachings for a man and a woman, but what does he mean about this covering? Paul is going to tell us exactly what he's talking about. It has nothing to do with a secondary coverings or hat, scarf, etc.
Paul is going to make this evident.
But every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered she her head for it is one also the same as shaven
Now what's shaven? Are we talking about shaving some secondary coverings?
Obviously not shaving has to do with hair.
So Paul is saying it dishonors a woman's head. It is like her shaving her head bald and going into public.
That's not honoring of her. Having a women's head shaven was seen a humiliation. Not humility but a humiliation. It is to put her down, and that's what's happening if a woman is not coverings her head.
Verse 6
For a a woman not covering meaning she has no coverings a woman not coverings also sheared he says.
Now in order to help us understand what he means Paul uses a different word for cutting off and so uses two words that which has been shaven and that which has been sheared or cut cut off.
Paul wants us to be very clear he's talking and he going to use this word in a moment. He's talking about hair.
So if a woman has no covering her head is uncovered it is as though she is shameful, and it's like her hair has been cut off or shaven.
Paul then writes and since it's a disgrace for a woman to be sheared or shaven.
So since it's disgraceful for a woman, and the implication is to be sheared or to be shaven because of it says let her be covered.
Now the question we need to answer is covered with what?
Maybe she has to have a coverings a secondary coverings for her head if she has no hair. Possibly a scarf. Is that what he us talking about here?
I'm going to share with you from the word of God this this is not Paul's intent.
I've already mentioned in this culture the emphasis was on the style of how a woman wore her hair, and we're going to see this you don't have to accept what I'm saying we're gonna encounter it in the text itself.
So Paul says it's disgraceful the implication is the woman to be shorn or shaven the implication is her hair let her be covered.
Verse 7
For a man ought not cover the head. Why?
An image and glory of God being
but the woman she is the glory of a man
So her glory is the man, man's glory is God. It's God's instituted order.
Now people who say oh that's sexist well listen to the reasons why Paul is saying this.
Verse 8
For not is a man from a woman but woman from a man
Verse 9
For also not created the man on account of the woman but the woman on account of the man
It's stating again that the woman was created to be a help mate for man her husband. Her existence is to be Submissive to her husband.
This isn't popular but it is God's order.
Now if you have a different perspective of God’s word than I do. I have no problem with that. If you don't believe in God's Word that's between you and God.
Verse 10
Because of this a woman ought to have authority upon her head on account of the angels
So the uncovering of her head shows lack of authority, but coverings her head shows authority.
In the Midrash fallen angels they chose ungodly women. Women who were not in subjection to God's will, or to their husband's.
I do not know if this is true or not. It's legendary material, but I find it interesting that it would be brought up.
These fallen angles who are looking to do do horrible immoral things opposed to the purposes of God.
Verse 11
However neither woman not separate from man nor man separate from woman in the lord
It says here yes there are differences the role of the man and the role of the woman.
There are significant differences but in Christ they're not opposed or separate from one another in Christ they come together they compliment these differences are brought together in the lordship of Christ in a couples life.
This has serious implications.
Woman submit yourself the truth of God the order of God the purposes of God for her as a woman on regard to the man her husband.
Man also submits to the authority of Christ.
What does that mean? It says in Ephesians 5
Husband's love your wives as Christ the church or called out ones.
So it's only when a man submits to his role, his instructions and the woman submits to her role both following the instructions of God they are made one under the lordship of Christ.
Verse 12
For as much as the woman is out of the man thus also the man is through the woman however all thing from God
At creation the woman came out of the man.
After Creation man came out of the woman.
Paul has been writing about being Submissiveness, about roles, about origin, and the purposes of God. All of these things we need to remember so that we submit that's what Paul's trying to get across to people. Understanding the order, the roles, understand who's in charge. It's God.
Verse 13
Among you yourselves judge is it proper for woman to be uncovered to God praying
So when a woman prays to God is it proper judge for yourselves based upon what Paul just revealed. Is it proper for her to be uncovered the implication is for her head to be uncovered. The answer is no its not based we have been told already.
Verse 14
Or does not nature itself teach you that if a man if he has long hair it's dishonor to him
Kome means long hair in Greek
atimia means no value dishonor
God says something through Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he says does not nature teach you that if a man have long hair is of no value.
Verse 15
But a woman if long hair glory it is to her
Last part of verse 15 in Greek
hoti hē Kome anti peribolaiou dedotai autē
For the long hair instead of or in place of a wrap around or coverings is given to her.
So full verse literal translation
But a woman if long hair glory it is to her
for the long hair instead of a wrap is given to her.
So in Corinth it was shameful for a man to have long hair and a woman to have short hair. So Paul gave them instructions to stop the contention/strife
Verse 16
Today based on verse 16 if a woman has short haircut or a man long hair it's permissible.
Now man isn't supposed to look like a woman and a woman isn't supposed to look like a man So keep that in mind when you style your hair.
We can have our own personal opinions based upon nature and what we think and I have strong opinions myself on this issue ask my son's and daughter. However, those are just my opinions.
Now when we deal with doctrine whether a woman has short hair, a man long hair, today based on the apostles teachings we have no such custom.
We should not be pointing fingers saying short hair woman are wrong or long hair on men. Beards are bad in some churches others a must. I believe this is a form of legalism. You know the Pharisees they were legalistic. Jesus didn't have much good to say about them.
Forgive my grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Great post, DS.
I’ve always seen it as legalistic. Man’s rules.
The very next verse…
“But in the following instructions, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together.”
1 Corinthians 11:17 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/1co.11.17.NLT
There’s a line between believing what you do, and judging someone else who thinks differently. And I don’t believe your haircut should be part of another man's judgement. Maybe other things go along with that, sure, but the haircut isn’t saving or condemning you.
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
Interesting in some things Dadsmith said about the history back then. My own personal study from years ago, about hair. I did it for the reason my old church believed woman cutting their hair was a sin. It was because Jezebel had cut her hair off and painted her face...thus Jezebel the first recorded woman to do so (according to them) was evil, this a woman cutting her hair and make up was a serious sin. I later from study found the reason Jezebel did what she did and my former pastor and church were wrong by a mile or more. But that study led to the one about woman being covered also. I think Paul is addressing this as how Jewish Christians were coming into the church. Looking at Jewish traditions and culture we ask how long can hair be and how short should hair be...? I have learned that Jews from th time of their captivity in Egypt did not what to be like the those who inslaved them. Any hair past the shoulder on a man was considered long and any woman with hair cut above the shoulders was short and that became a standard. Paul being Jewish would then know and have that as the culture of the time. Using this we see how Paul was addressing some of this to the church, especially those who were Jews. He also as mentioned made sure we know that the covering with woman is indeed her hair. Now what happens if one who isn't a Jew or lived in that culture that has those doctrines. Paul states if any have problem with this we have no "custom". That custom I found meaning a law saying how short is short or how long long is and the such. So if they don't want to walk in that there is no custom or law stating they have to. No where in the scriptures does God demand or have a law about hair or how to manage it regarding woman and how it is to be kept or how long long is...you won't find, if a woman cut her hair she shall be stoned until dead. This is why Paul said neither we have no such customs (laws) and neither does the church. So its addressed so all know. As for the angels taking glory I haven't found any bible where Paul could of came up with this. My assumption is Paul was full of the Holy Ghost and full of the gifts, so may have had a word of wisdom or knowledge from God on this. This has been my take over the years. And some history I learned. So know we have people who thing its hats, clothing, hair, sin if you cut your hair, its ok to cut your hair.....I guess we do our best to find answers. Walk in the truth you believe and can face God. God judges by our hearts, if our heart convicts us....even if its not sin, it will be sin to us. You think you should wear a hat...wear it then. I will say I know several woman who after years have cut their hair in good conscience after growing and learning and are devoted christians...and I'm sure there are some who still don't cut their hair believing those that have are going to hell losing their souls.....we all can give our own account. and our hearts will either convict us, or spare us. Always interesting how difficult some things can be, to understand and interpret and know the history of....I suppose thats one reason why we have so many churches that have divided over so many issues so many times over so many doctrines and so many teachings. I have to remind myself.....to love, someday we will all know all things....and I doubt many have all the answers to all the Bible questions out there.
Last edited:
Thank you for your thoughtful post, but please, for all of us, use the enter key next time.
Israeli research uses Earth's magnetic field to verify event in Bible's Book of Kings
The discovery was achieved by scientists from Tel Aviv University (TAU), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU), Bar-Ilan University (BIU) in Ramat Gan, and Ariel University in Samaria.
m.jpost.com
Interesting find.
Pretty cool. Sounds like the opposite end of the spectrum from cryogenic treating metal.
Israeli research uses Earth's magnetic field to verify event in Bible's Book of Kings
The discovery was achieved by scientists from Tel Aviv University (TAU), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU), Bar-Ilan University (BIU) in Ramat Gan, and Ariel University in Samaria.
Interesting find.
Gods creation is amazing.
ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
Looks like y'all been busy.
Soli Deo gloria
Soli Deo gloria
