SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : No Custom? Or No Argument?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
HakkaMin
Member



Joined: 2004/4/12
Posts: 60
Taiwan

 Re:

You might want to read the article on Steve Gregg's website called "Headcoverings And Women." Just go to www.thenarrowpath.com and click on "Topical Articles" in the left menu.

Here's a tiny excerpt that relates to your main question:

"One of the more debatable points in the present passage is found in its closing verse (16), where Paul concludes, 'If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.' [For some reason, several newer translations, e.g. the NASB, TEV and NIV, have arbitrarily translated the Greek word toioutos (such) as 'other.' This has no warrant in the Greek nor in manuscripts and appears to be the imposition of an idea that translators thought Paul should have written!]"

Steve Gregg gives a pretty complete treatment of this topic. I'd encourage you check out the whole thing.


_________________
Gregg Dennington

 2006/3/3 3:38Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hello Hakkamin...

Thank you for this link. I don't know much about this website, but it is always nice to hear or read some messages from others.

But as far as the translation of the word, you may want to remember that some versions rely on different source texts. The KJV relies on the Textus Receptus, while the NIV and NASB rely on other sources. Thus, the "greek word" in one source may not even be the same "greek word" in the other.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/3/3 3:49Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Quote:

HakkaMin wrote:
"One of the more debatable points in the present passage is found in its closing verse (16), where Paul concludes, 'If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.' [For some reason, several newer translations, e.g. the NASB, TEV and NIV, have arbitrarily translated the Greek word toioutos (such) as 'other.' This has no warrant in the Greek nor in manuscripts and appears to be the imposition of an idea that translators thought Paul should have written!]"



Thank you for the link. That was the type of approach I was looking for. I am still going to look around in the Greek, well.. atleast see what some others say about it. That verse seems to be important in understanding what Paul meant.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/3/3 11:28Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7469
Mississippi

 Re:

Brethren, I would like to make a few comments you made on your posts.

Quote:
That being said, I still do not see any link between a lack of hats on women and the sinful practice of homosexuality in the Church.

Chris, if you will follow the deterioration of lifestyles in the church in general (in the past 150 years), you will notice this progression. What happens is when a person decides a scriptural directive is irrelevant for today, that individual will move out away from God’s umbrella of protection, making him/her vulnerable to satanic attacks because he/she will have moved away from the protection of God’s ministering spirits, the angels. When the Mennonite church decided the head covering was no longer applicable and then discarded it, immodesty became a bigger problem as well as immorality, shacking up, divorce and remarriage and now homosexuality. These sins were not the norm as long as they acknowledged the headship of God-Jesus-Male-Female by the wearing a head covering signifying this relationship. When you say this was an ancient custom and therefore no longer applies to us moderns, would you say the headship principle is no longer active today as well?

Chris, I have witnessed this progression in my lifetime…I am almost 59 years old. This has happened also in the popular churches of today…the Baptists, Presbyterians, et al.

Quote:
I've noticed that men's appearance over the centuries have varied widely. Many men of God had very long beards.

Many males in times past wore beards and many of the old church fathers wrote articles taking males to task for shaving. There are churches today that will hold to similar ideas. The NT does not discuss this practice at all even though it was a requirement for the OT men.


QUOTE:
When a person is where he or she should be, that person is concerned with what is going on inside of people’s hearts, not what they look like.

What a person does, how he/she dresses, their body language tell people what’s in their hearts. You cannot separate the two. Having said that, there are those who will act like Christians, dress modestly but are rotten in their hearts, who do not know Jesus, but have only a religion.

Quote:
Not only that, but I have a difficult time seeing the "covering" as mentioned in I Corinthians 11 as referring to any sort of covering besides hair. The "nature of things" does teach us that women were meant to wear long hair. Men are not meant to wear long hair -- because it is against the natural order that God gave us. Verse 15 of I Corinthians chapter 11 teaches us that hair is the natural covering referred to in this passage. A hat is simply a man-made object.

This scripture is referring to two coverings for a female: the hair and another man made veil. If it would be only talking about hair, you will have to conclude men have to shave their heads! In v. 6 (For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. NASB) it says a woman should cover herself, indicating a covering that does not occur naturally like hair.

Sirs, since you are not convinced from the scriptures of the necessity of women wearing a head covering, I will encourage you to check out the web for testimonies of women who wear one, what blessing it has been for them. I know experiential evidence is not valid to determine the biblical teaching of anything. However, life will prove doctrine, when it is something that affects a lifestyle. For example, the scriptures tell us lying is sin. Is there not enough experiential evidence to prove it is destructive to human relationships? And here is another point: the color of the veiling makes a huge difference! Are you scandalized now for sure???!!!!

Sirs, I would urge you to study this scripture carefully, ask God to teach you concerning this issue. He is a whole lot better teacher then I or anyone else can ever be.

Blessings,
ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2006/3/4 15:43Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re: No Custom? Or No Argument?

NLT 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.

So everyone who thinks that a covering is not applicable today thinks the above is a bad translation and the below is the correct?

NASB But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/3/6 10:14Profile
danfrey
Member



Joined: 2006/3/6
Posts: 2


 Re: Veil

Just one quick addition. Anyone who thinks this was just a Corinthian culture thing should read Tertullians "On the veiling of virgins" He discusses the different types of veils worn in many different regions. It is clear from the early church writings that they accepted Pauls writings to say that a woman should veil during prayer and prophesy. There was no such custom as being contentious about the headcover. There are multiple writings from those that spoke the language of scripture.

The Christians of the first couple of centuries were more willing to buck culture than we are.

As Leonard Ravenhill said,
“When there’s something in the Bible that churches don’t like, they call it ‘legalism.’”

 2006/3/6 18:18Profile









 Re:

Here we have the case of what we all talked about last night .... picking our battles or picking our threads and on this issue, I pray this is not a point to press too hard on.


Just my thought. :smart:

 2006/3/6 18:30









 Re:

Oops, I pushed submit before I had intended here.

It's not a question of knowing the Greek in the case of 1 Corth 11 as it is to not pull a verse out of the context of a Chapter or book.

Especially with this particular chapter we're dealing with ... it MUST be read in it's entirety.

The two verses that precede the one in question read ... 1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Paul here is talking about hair length for both men and woman and Robertson's says on the notes for 11:5 just for one ...
1Co 11:5 -
With her head unveiled (akatakaluptōi tēi kephalēi). Associative instrumental case of manner and the predicative adjective (compound adjective and feminine form same as masculine), “with the head unveiled.” Probably some of the women had violated this custom. “Amongst Greeks only the hetairai, so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head - also a punishment of the adulteress” (Findlay). Cf. Num_5:18.
One and the same thing as if she were shaven (hen kai to auto tēi exurēmenēi). Literally, “One and the same thing with the one shaven” (associative instrumental case again, Robertson, Grammar, p. 530). Perfect passive articular participle of the verb xuraō, later form for the old xureō. It is public praying and prophesying that the Apostle here has in mind. He does not here condemn the act, but the breach of custom which would bring reproach. A woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn (Isa_7:20). The Justinian code prescribed shaving the head for an adulteress whom the husband refused to receive after two years. Paul does not tell Corinthian Christian women to put themselves on a level with courtesans.[end]


So, we can't pick and choose which verses out of a chapter we run with because the main problem with the Church at Corinth was their [b] "lack of unity"[/b].

As Paul goes on from the verses above to ...
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
1Co 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.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. ETC.

And from these, onto Communion, where they were not "considering one another or The Body" and many were sick and dying because they did not consider "The Body" which should be well connected to The Head and is how it ties in with the Man being over/covering the Woman from earlier in the chpt.

Watchman Nee, just for one, did a fantastic teaching on "Considering The Body".
That unless we respect "HIS" Body ... then we are in danger of those things Paul warns of in the Communion verses.

Unity on the Essentials - Tolerance on the Non-Essentials.

But if this head covering issue becomes an Essential in The Body - then we've lost our unity and that would break the heart of God.

Please keep in mind, that Paul was having MANY issues to deal with, with this particular Church and to explain the Communion he goes about it in a round about fashion at first.
Look to see within the whole of Corinthians, just how many "issues" he had to contend with them over. They were a tough crowd.

Too much "mercy" to begin with in Chapter 5 .... the abuse of the gifts from 12 to 14 ... with their lack of love sandwiched between those and so on.

So to "split hairs" (no pun intended) we may just as soon go into men with long hair now - how long is too long and how short is too short ... and I pray that too does not become an issue here but more of what Paul continues on to say in Chpt. 11 about the Unity of The Body.

God Bless.

 2006/3/6 18:56
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7469
Mississippi

 Re:

Are we discussing opinions or Biblical directives? Makes a huge difference....Opinions are always debatable...Biblical directives/principles are not.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2006/3/7 22:41Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi ginnyrose...!

Quote:
Are we discussing opinions or Biblical directives? Makes a huge difference....Opinions are always debatable...Biblical directives/principles are not.

I suppose the issue is something that you consider to be a "Biblical principle." I disagree. I feel that it is unwise to build a religious tradition on the passage of a single reference -- one that is particularly unclear.

It is safe to say that there are many other such "Biblical directives/principles" that are not followed -- even by women who cover their hair with a scarf, hat or veil. In fact, there are a couple that refer to the inability of women to "teach men." However, I have found that some women have been wonderful examples and teachers on this message board.

It is very important to get to the "root" of each issue of the Law (Matthew 5:17-42). While there is not a reference to enforced female head-covering in the Old Testament -- it does appear that this practice is almost establishing a "[i]new Law[/i]" -- one that is not based upon the principles of Acts 15:19-21 or Matthew 22:36-40.

Is it possible that forcing women to wear man-made head scarves, hats or veils might be a tradition of men (including well-meaning and godly men)?

:-)

p.s. - I am still studying this, but I am quite convinced that the "covering" mentioned in I Corinthians is speaking of [u]hair[/u] and not a man-made hat.


_________________
Christopher

 2006/3/8 1:35Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy