SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Woman's Head Covering

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
luke133
Member



Joined: 2005/4/28
Posts: 13


 Re:

That's an easy statement to make but a bit harder to support. In 15 verses of direction given on the covering Paul NEVER ONCE appeals to culture to support his argument. His reasons are based on the roles of men and women, order in creation, Christ's relationship to the Father and to men, and the testimony of nature, all of which transcend culture.

 2007/1/13 18:07Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Brothers and Sisters,

I do believe this is a profitable discussion. I do think it would be a good first start for people that want to go in depth in this thread to listen to the sermon mentioned in the first post which you can download here:

[b]The Doctrine Of Headship[/b] by Ross Ulrich
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=9313

[b]Description:[/b] An exegesis of I Corinthians 11 on the teaching of the head covering as it relates to God's headship. This is a very straightforward teaching on the subject. Contains a clear explanation as to why the hair is not the prayer veiling.


Secondly, I do think we should post more scriptures on this subject if the discussions are going to continue in such a manner. We all have our opinions which are important but when it comes down to it, the word of God is our final authority.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2007/1/13 18:13Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I have just listened to Ross Ulrich's message on this topic. It has been a noisy experience with my little study ringing with 'amens'! This is unusual for me especially on this topic. I hardly ever hear preaching on this topic but so many of Ross's conclusions are my own.

There are some points where I would want to add a comment or two. The issue of 'long hair' I think is capable of another view. One area where there were no 'amens' was the latter part where Ross insists that this is not only for 'public assembly'. I disagree that it is 'man's assumption' that this passage is relates to 'the public gathering'. Ross claims that the instructions come before Paul mentions the 'coming together' and therefore is applicable in every context. I think this is a mistaken view. He bases his position on the repetition of the KJV phrase [color=0000ff]1Cor. 11:18 For first of all, [b]when ye come together[/b] in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

1Cor. 11:20 [b]When ye come together[/b] therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. [/color]..as though the 'when you come together is distinct from earlier instructions in the chapter. The KJV phrase 'when ye come together' does not imply that the chapters preceding verses apply to every context. It is simply the Greek verb 'coming together'. The whole context is of 'praying and prophesying', do we envisage this happening in the market place? And we need to remember that this injunction is part of a matched pair. However we interpret the context of the woman and her covering we must apply to the man and his uncovering. If a woman must cover her head at all times, then the man uncover his head at all times. Is it likely that this is what Paul was saying?

The second point where I would take issue with this teaching is in the use of the phrase 'long hair'. The words used are only used in this passage of scripture so it is impossible to compare them with other contexts. [color=0000ff]“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has [b]long hair[/b], it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has [b]long hair[/b], it is a glory to her; for her [b]hair[/b] is given to her for a covering.” (1Cor 11:14-15 NKJV)[/color] The Greek words used are both verbs and nouns. Thayers Lexicon has an interesting comment about this word. [color=0000ff]komE dieffers from thrix (the anatomical or physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested)[/color] The significance of this is that the 'hair' is being regarded as an ornament rather than has a physiological fact. A more scholarly description with lots of Classical Greek quotations can be found [url=http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CE%BA%E1%BD%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7&root=%CE%BA%E1%BD%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7&number=682690]here[/url] There is a further expansion of the meaning of the word here too [color=0000ff]the hair of the head (locks, as ornamental, and thus differing from 2359; which properly denotes merely the scalp)[/color] This is viewing the hair by function rather than by length. This is not essentially 'long hair' but 'coiffeured hair' ie 'hair as an ornament'.

A Nazarite (Numbers 6) was required to leave his hair uncut and if he did this for a long period it would no doubt become 'long hair' in the English sense of the word but it would not become 'coiffeured hair'. A nazarite's hair would never become hair coiffeured ornament. The 'length' of the hair then is only significant as an aspect of the grooming rather than something which could be measured.

I have worked with Christians of many cultures and natures and have often asked the question 'is it a cause of shame in your culture for a man to have long hair'? Often the answer is 'no'. In many cultures long and unkempt hair was part of the uniform of the the warrior, so there was no hint of effeminacy. If you ask would it be cause of shame for a man to have elaborately styled hair; the answer, almost invariably, is 'yes'.

So the cheering and the amens were a little less in the latter part of the sermon, but I do agree with the spirit and much of the detail of this audio file.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/15 13:16Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

Philogos wrote:

Quote:
The whole context is of 'praying and prophesying', do we envisage this happening in the market place?



Brother, the answer to this question is unequivocally "Yes!". Females do pray and prophecy in the marketplace. I do. I pray a lot; prophecy in my conversations with people. Most of my praying is done when I work, drive or shop...very little while in formal worship service, comparitively speaking. Brother, a few years ago we attended our sons' graduation exercises from Mississippi State University. When the invocation was given I noticed the males removing their caps. Not so with the females. Wonder why? Nature, instinct at work?

Brother, I wear a headcovering during all waking hours. In my early morning toilet I will put it on after combing my hair. One morning I forgot, was on the way to work at the Crises Pregnancy Center when I reached up and noticed I forgot to put it on. I stopped, went back home to remedy this. Brother, I felt so naked, vulnerable! I would never have dared to minister to anyone without it...I needed the Holy Spirit's guidance desperately and in no way was I going to go anything to hamper that ministry to my heart this day.

I have worked with many ladies who profess to be Christians at CPC. They come from many denominations: Baptist, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Charismatic, Catholic. There is one attribute common to all: they experience an excessive amount of fear for their own personal safety! This is so unlike what I witness among the sisters who wear a white veiling of some kind. Seriously! Would you know the director of CPC (back then) carried a pistol in her purse for personal protection! Brother, there is something wrong here.

I am short, one inch less then 5' tall. The reality is that any male could overpower me and do me harm if he would have the notion to do so. So what do I do? Cower in fear because of it? I could...but I do everything I know the Scriptures tell me to do and then depend on the protection of Angels. They know it as well as Christ. Physically, there is no way I can protect myself from evil men. I am totally dependent on supernatural protection for my well-being. Consequently, I seldon ever experience fear. If I do, I know I am in danger and must take extra precautions and I pray more fervently.

Ron, I have read testimonies of evil men who had intentions of harming females but when they saw how they were modestly garbed with a white covering, they could not do it and told the potential victims so which left them in awe of the protecting power of God.

Here is something else that needs to be considered, IMHO. Another poster mentioned how the application of 1 Cor. 11: 1-16 was common among all Christian groups years ago. Today the only [large] goups wearing it in the USA are Mennonites, Brethren, Hutterites and Amish, all Anabaptist groups. In the past 50 years there has been a wholesale abandonment of this practice among all of these groups except for the Amish. What has happened? The incidence of divorce and remarriage rose, females clamoring to be ordained as pastors....Any connection? I see this in my own kinfolks...do not need a research group to tell me this!

This is my conviction on this issue. I know the temptaion of using the headcovering as a good luck charm. This is the devil working to pervert something God has directed. We do not see people discarding anything else, like marriage, because the devil works to pervert it.

Ron, I welcome your comment on whatever I have written...

Blessings,
ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/1/16 10:31Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Brother, the answer to this question is unequivocally "Yes!". Females do pray and prophecy in the marketplace. I do. I pray a lot; prophecy in my conversations with people. Most of my praying is done when I work, drive or shop...very little while in formal worship service, comparitively speaking. Brother, a few years ago we attended our sons' graduation exercises from Mississippi State University. When the invocation was given I noticed the males removing their caps. Not so with the females. Wonder why? Nature, instinct at work?


This provides the next obvious question. Do I, as a male, have to remain without a headcovering 24x7? No hard-hat on the building site? No bobble hat on the sledge run?

Do you sleep in it? Do you make breakfast in it? Do you shower in it? :-D :-D

Your answer of 'yes' isn't really answering the question I asked. I was really asking if we envisage Paul requiring, by the Spirit, that the woman remain covered at all times. If there is a single exception to this rule your position is undermined. I was carol-singing in a shopping area just before Christmas and was aware that some carols are actually prayers. Ought I to have removed my hat for these verses? (that would certainly have shortened my songs; I have no hair and the night was cold!)


Quote:
In the past 50 years there has been a wholesale abandonment of this practice among all of these groups except for the Amish. What has happened? The incidence of divorce and remarriage rose, females clamoring to be ordained as pastors....Any connection?


Not necessarily.

Years ago I was speaking in a large Pentecostal church in Belarus. The man who introduced me raised to cheers from the congregation by introducing me as 'the man who has 7 children and who attends a church where the women cover their heads'! But these cheers were from conservative people who regard traditional values as 'godly'. This is a dangerous assumption. We must constantly examine the scriptures to know 'whether these things are so'.

Your testimony/anecdotes are interesting illustrations but we must base our teaching on the book. I love, BTW, the Ross' introduction when he says, something like...
"there are important doctrines in the scriptures, and there are some doctrines which are more important than other doctrines, but there are no unimportant doctrines".

So I believe strongly that there are important issues at stake with the teaching of 'head covering'. I am always surprised that we haven't asked the even more!?! significant question. "why, when hundreds of years had demanded it, does Paul now say that men must [b]not[/b] cover their heads?" For many women to 'continue' to cover their heads would not have taken many by surprise but why should the male now be told that he must not cover his head in the meetings?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/16 11:40Profile
myfirstLove
Member



Joined: 2005/11/26
Posts: 496


 Re:

could you guys read this and tell me what you think.

thankyou


Head Covering
By Eric Svendsen

1 Co 11:12-16 clearly states that women should have their heads covered while praying or prophesying. It also ranks among the most difficult of all passages in the NT. The intent of this article is not to give an exhaustive analysis of this passage, and so no attempt will be made to deal with every issue that surrounds this passage. Rather, this chapter will show whether or not Paul sees head covering as a normative church custom; or indeed, whether Paul sees this as a valid custom for any church, even for those of his own time.

Interpreters of this passage have found themselves in one of two camps when deciding what relevance this passage has for the church today. On the one hand, there are those who see this passage as having relevance for churches in Paul's day (though perhaps not all churches in Paul's day) and either no relevance for today or a modified relevance for today. Those in this camp include Christian feminists who see absolutely nothing in this passage to speak to the church today, as well as traditionalists who see an abiding principle of headship and submission but no binding custom of head coverings for women. In the other camp are those who see not only headship of men and submission of women, but also a command from Paul that head coverings for women are to be a custom of church practice throughout the ages.
Concerning the position of those in the first camp, it is unwise to explain away NT commands using the guise of cultural relativity. Cultural relativity is a very dubious principle upon which to operate. It can, in fact, be used to dismiss any or every part of the NT. Needless to say, we can't have that!

But even if one wanted to make an exception to the rule that commands in Scripture cannot be considered culturally relative, there still is no basis for doing so in this passage. There is absolutely nothing in this passage to suggest that Paul sees a cultural limitation to his injunction about head coverings. On the contrary, every reason Paul gives for his injunction is arguably timeless and universal in scope. His reasons include the chain of headship (God-Christ-man-woman, v 3), the priority of creation (vv 8-9), the angels (v 10), and nature itself (v 14). None of these things is temporary or culturally limited, but rather timeless, and indicate that Paul's injunction must be seen as timeless. Moreover, Paul calls this practice a "custom" of the church (v 16), and a "tradition" which he has handed down and to which he expects churches to hold (v 2).

Those of the second camp (i.e., those who see head coverings as a binding church practice) obviously enjoy the luxury of being able to argue the previous points. They also have the advantage of taking Paul's words at face value and can apply the passage without compromising hermeneutic integrity. Theirs is the stronger position based upon the preponderance of evidence. However, four or five points of grammar in this passage force a look at a third position.

Before positing the third position it will be necessary to look at several key elements of Paul's argument in this passage. First, it is notable that Paul takes one tone from vv 3-10, but from vv 11-16 takes quite another tone. Verse 11 seems to be the pivot point of the two tones. The key phrase in v 11 is "In the Lord, however." In the passage immediately preceding this phrase Paul makes several observations that, after v 11, he seems to balance. For instance, in vv 8-9 Paul seems to be arguing that man is completely independent of woman and, indeed, that woman is completely dependent on man ("for man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man"). Paul's point seems to be two-fold: 1) man does not rely upon woman for his existence, and 2) woman does rely upon man for her existence, and, indeed, her existence is for the very purpose of benefiting man.

Yet, beginning with v 11, Paul seems to add balance to what he said in vv 8-9. Paul argues in v 11 that, yes, while it is true woman is not independent of man, "in the Lord" neither is "man independent of woman." The statement in vv 8-9 is true in itself, but does not go quite far enough. Man and woman are interdependent; neither one can claim independence. Paul expands upon this in v 12. In essence he says, yes, it is true that woman was made from man, but "also the man is born of the woman"–hence, interdependence, and hence, vv 8-9 are balanced by vv 11-12.

One last balance seems to be between v 7 and v 12. In v 7 Paul seems to argue that man was made in the image of God but woman was not. Instead, she was made in the image of man. The phrase "image and glory" is what is technically referred to as a hendiadys (lit., "one through two") and means simply that Paul uses two words to refer to one thing. So, when he says that man was created in the "image and glory of God" and that woman was created in the "glory of man," he means the same thing in both instances (Paul uses only one word, "glory," in the second phrase to represent the entire phrase "image and glory"). However, the idea that woman was made in the image of man (not untrue in itself, but misrepresentative of the fact that both man and woman were made in the image of God–see Ge 1:27) is balanced in v 12: "But everything comes from God." If v 9 makes the point that woman has her source in man, v 12 places it in proper perspective by pointing out that "everything" (i.e., both man and woman) has it's source in God.

So, why does Paul make statements in vv 7-10 that he later must balance in vv 11-12? Before answering this question it will be necessary to reconstruct the occasion of Paul's response in this section of his letter. The best starting point is in v 16. There Paul gives us a clue as to what is going on. He says, "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God." It seems relatively clear from Paul's words that someone (or, perhaps more likely, some group) was insisting that the church take a specific position on women's head coverings. Most standard translations (including the NASB and the NIV) render Paul as saying, "we have no other practice." This would indicate that the "contentious" group was insisting that women should not wear head coverings. Paul then would be correcting this group by appealing to a universal church custom of head coverings for women. What is so surprising (and what is the very thing that caused me to rethink this passage) is that the Greek word translated "other" in v 16 (toioutos) never means "other" anywhere else; and, in fact, means only "such" ("we have no such custom"). Needless to say, this drastically changes the meaning of Paul's words. If Paul is saying "we have no such custom of women wearing head coverings," then obviously the "contentious" group was insisting that women should wear head coverings.
Moreover, when viewed this way, it becomes increasingly clear why Paul would make several points before v 11 only to counter them after v 11. It also explains why at the beginning of this passage Paul praises the Corinthians for not giving in to the pressure of the contentious group but, instead, for "holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you" (v 2).

Based upon this information we may assume the following to be true of the Corinthian situation. The "contentious" group had been trying to get the rest of the Corinthians to adopt a custom of women covering their heads with some kind of garment when praying or prophesying. The Corinthians, uncertain as to what to do in this situation, include a section about this teaching in a general letter which they wrote to Paul (see 7:1 for evidence of this letter). In the letter they may have said something to this effect: "There are some Christians who have come to us and told us that we are supposed to have our women wear head garments during the meeting. We don't recall you saying anything about this. So far we have not changed the way we have been doing things, but we would like to get your thoughts on this teaching." To which Paul replies, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you." In other words, "I praise you for not changing the way I taught you to do things, especially in light of the fact that you were under pressure by this group to modify your meetings."

Paul then begins to outline in vv 3-10 the building blocks upon which those in the "contentious" group have built their teaching that women need to wear garments as head coverings. The important thing to remember here is that Paul does not disagree with the building blocks used by those in the "contentious" group to develop their theology of garments as head coverings. On the contrary, he agrees that a woman does indeed need a head covering when praying or prophesying. Everything that Paul says through v 10 is something that Paul firmly believes. He believes that woman was created in the image of man; he believes that woman is dependent on man and that man was created independent on woman–he believes all of this to be true. But he does not believe it to be the whole truth. Yes, woman was, in a sense, created in the image of man (v 7) (it was from Adam that Eve was created), but ultimately she, too, was created in the image of God (v 12). Yes, woman is dependent upon man for her initial existence (v 9), but so is man dependent upon woman for his further existence (vv 11-12).

So, while Paul does not disagree with the theological foundation of those in the "contentious" group, neither does he think they have gone far enough in building their theology. At best they have a lopsided view of a woman's status before God. Likewise, Paul does not disagree that, on the basis of male headship, women should have a "covering" on their heads when praying or prophesying. His disagreement is with the application of this principle (i.e., the type of covering).

All through this passage (vv 3-10) Paul has been insisting that a woman must have a "covering" on her head. The Greek word he uses here is katakaluptos. Here he is in agreement with those of the "contentious" group. They, too, have been insisting that a woman have a covering on her head. But then Paul shifts his tone in v 11: "In the Lord, however," and from that point on begins to explain how this principle correctly applies to the church.

In vv 13-14 Paul asks the Corinthians two questions: 1) "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"; 2) "Does not the very nature of things teach you that . . . if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" The two questions are to be answered as a set. The second question is intended to buttress the first. In other words, by answering the second question first, the answer to the first question should then be obvious. A wise sales manager might ask his sales team: "Is an increased sales effort something that we want to do away with" and then buttress that with: "Don't we want to see an increase in our bonuses next month?" By answering the second question first (yes, we do want to see an increase in bonuses), the answer to the first question then becomes obvious (no, an increased sales effort is not something that we want to do away with).

Paul uses the same reasoning here. To answer the second question first: yes, a woman's long hair is her glory (that is, it keeps her from the "shame" of being uncovered). This makes the answer to the first question obvious: no, it is not proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.

But here Paul is thinking about a specific kind of covering. Up until this verse Paul has consistently used the word katakaluptos ("covering") to insist that a woman be covered while praying or prophesying. Paul agrees with the contentious group that a woman does need a covering. What he disagrees with is their application. The contentious group insisted that the covering be a garment (a veil or shawl), whereas Paul is arguing that, in the case of the church ("In the Lord, however," v 11), the covering is the woman's own hair. Long hair, Paul argues, is the glory of a woman (v 15). he further argues this point in the very next phrase: "For, long hair is given to her as a covering." The word "as" here is anti, and means literally "instead of." The word for "covering" in this verse is not the same as has been used by Paul up to this point. Everywhere else in this passage Paul has used katakaluptos, which is a very generic term for "covering." Here Paul uses the word peribolaios, which means literally "that which is wrapped around [the head]."

In other words, Paul is saying that, yes, women do need coverings (katakaluptos) on their heads when praying or prophesying. But, "in the Lord" that covering is not a peribolaios (cloth wrapped around the head) but rather the woman's own long hair. In fact, "in the Lord" (i.e., in the church), long hair is given to a woman "instead of" (not "as") "that which is wrapped around the head." Women in the church have a ready-made covering and are therefore not necessarily in violation of the principles expressed in vv 3-10. Overall then, 1 Co 11:2-16 is a very liberating passage. In it, women are freed from the bondage of wearing religious head garb.

On which side of this issue do I then fall? In practice I do not at all differ from those who see this passage as culturally relative and who therefore do not practice garment head coverings for women. Hermeneutically, I am more closely allied with those who see no cultural relativity in this passage and who believe Paul is here laying down a custom for the church of all ages and cultures. Although I disagree with it regarding the exegesis of this passage, this view is far more faithful to Paul's intent than is the former view. Still, neither view seems to grapple with the literary structure of this passage (the point/counterpoint dialogue that pivots around v 11) or the points of grammar brought up in this chapter (the use of anti ["instead of"] in v 15, and the use of toioutos ["such"] in v 16). My reconstruction, though admittedly not without its own inherent weaknesses, goes much farther in unraveling a difficult passage about which there is much dispute. I hope that it will be of help to those who seek to follow apostolic tradition.


_________________
Lisa

 2007/1/16 12:18Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: head coverings

my two cents...

I have long hair because I am too cheap to go to the hairdresser every month and deal with all the fashion stuff. I’m content to tie it back and be done with it. But more important, my husband does not want me to cut it. Now, even though that sounds pious: submission and self-denial, I do not myself attribute any spiritual virtue to my practice, and I don’t see that Paul would either.

Frankly, I have yet to see in real life where there is a close connection between the observance of the practice and a high degree of spiritual maturity. Usually it is closer to the contrary. In religious settings where the practice is meticulously observed, I have seen all kinds of ungodliness in relationships. There is a lack of submission to the Sprit. Legalism practically suffocates the church. Now, I don’t wish to generalize, just point out that to a fair degree the church seems to be missing something.

I’ve heard David Bercot present a compelling argument for veils. He also explains why they cannot be transparent or lacy (as the Brethren practice) but opaque, and must touch the shoulders. While I cannot disagree with his argument, I have to admit that there is something missing. Surely for me to go to church looking like a nun in a Presby church would do little to glorify my Lord. It would be most distracting – drawing attention to myself.

Maybe what’s missing is the Spirit of the issue.


Consider Paul’s words: “Does not the nature of things teach you ....

The natural elements are replete with prophetic pictures of spiritual realities. Perhaps we, in our intellectual sophistication, have lost the ability to read them. The nature of things, that is, all creation tell me that there is a sovereign God and we’re not him. In other words, we must align ourselves under him – submitted to his authority and his redemption.

The head covering makes more sense to me if I regard it as a prophetic picture given to remind us of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The wife (bride) is a symbolic picture of the Church and the husband is a symbolic picture of Christ. The Church cannot be united with Christ in divine matrimony without having her sins covered with his blood, which I believe is prophetically pictured by a woman's long hair (or a head covering). "Long hair… is her GLORY" because it is a visual picture of the glory of Christ covering the Church. As his bride, the Church is covered with the GLORY of Christ.

Paul asked: "Is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered?"I Cor. 11:12 Prophetically speaking, the answer is 'No,' because no one can approach the Lord without being covered by Christ's mercy and forgiveness. That's why God doesn't hear the prayers of someone who rejects salvation, that is, is not covered by his blood.
However Christ himself is without sin and therefore does not need a covering. That is why, " if a man has long hair it is a disgrace." It would be a disgrace to portray Christ as in need of a covering because that would deny his sinless perfection and his deity.

In the days of the early church any woman who had short hair and kept her head uncovered communicated a clear message: She was not living under the covering of her husband in a relationship of fidelity. Instead, she was available as a prostitute. In Paul’s day the churches could easily have equated the meaning of this cultural practice to the meaning of the Church's relationship to her spiritual husband - Christ.

We have lost this picture. Because of this, it has been easy to use this head covering references to create gender distinctions that are more worldly than biblical. The man may think that he needs no covering (spiritually) and fail to submit to God’s authority. (Really as part of the Bride, he needs a Spiritual covering) The man may falsely assume that he is her Savior (her Head) or he may usurp the authority in her life that belongs to the Spirit. Or people may develop superstitions like mentioned above: “Man was made in the image of God and woman was not.” That theology sounds more pagan than Christian.

That is, what I believe, the outcome of trying to figure this thing out apart from seeing the bigger picture of divine truth.

Diane



_________________
Diane

 2007/1/16 14:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
by myfirstLove on 2007/1/16 17:18:11

could you guys read this and tell me what you think.


Eric Svendsen is right in drawing attention to verse 16 [color=0000ff]“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (1Cor 11:16 NKJV)[/color]and in saying that there is evidence of some group which wanted to question the current pattern. The problem is that, although the latter part of 1 Cortinthians is aimed at answering various questions addressed to Paul by the Corinthian church, we cannot categorically restate the exact questions. Consequently we are trying to build up hypothetical questions from Paul's answers. This is not easy.

It may. of course been the case that the question was "Would it be right for us to abandon the head covering tradition?' The answer which ends in "we have no such custom" would then imply that this suggested innovation was just another evidence of Corinthian independence. This somewhat haughty attitude seems to have drawn out Paul to say...[color=0000ff]“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” (1Cor 14:34-36 NKJV)[/color]This comment is essentially in the same part of the letter where Paul is dealing with the way in which the 'body gathers together'. (this is one of my reasons for saying it is 'church based' and not an injunction for the whole of life.)

Also against Svendsen's interpretation would be the way that Paul introduces this topic...[color=0000ff]“Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1Cor 11:1-3 NKJV)[/color]He refers here to 'the traditions'. These are truths and practices that Paul consciously 'handed down' to the young churches. In fact, Breaking Bread which follows in this chapter is another such 'tradition'. Tradition then, is not always a bad thing. It all depends on where it came from. Paul's practice and his doctrine were equally important.

So also was the 'corporate testimony'. In an era when travel was difficult and communications were not so easily authenticated as now it was important that the collective witness of the community was considered. You can see this too in [color=0000ff]“And the things that you have heard from me [b]among many witnesses[/b], commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Tim 2:2 NKJV)[/color] In 1 Cor 11:16 Paul is actually calling upon the corporate witness of 'all the churches' and upon his own statement. He is really saying 'such a custom is unheard of'.

Later in this chapter Paul writes:[color=0000ff]“And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1Cor 14:35-37 NKJV)[/color] The word 'commandments' is in the plural and Paul says they have come from the Lord. Remembering that this section of 1 Corinthians is only split into chapters and verses for our convenience and was not as Paul wrote it, these 'commandments' will include all his teaching in the earlier part of 1Cor 11.

A further point against Svendsen's position is that if it were true then Paul is going to extraordinary lengths simply to say 'it doesn't matter'. I think this sits very uneasily with the way Paul writes.

well... that's what one of 'the guys' thinks, anyway...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/17 10:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Frankly, I have yet to see in real life where there is a close connection between the observance of the practice and a high degree of spiritual maturity.


This may well be true but it is also true of water baptism and holy communion. The cure for wrong use is not non-use but right use.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/1/17 10:58Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

Rom wrote:

Quote:
For many women to 'continue' to cover their heads would not have taken many by surprise but why should the male now be told that he must not cover his head in the meetings?



Ron I read your response two days ago and have done a lot of thinking about it since. And Greg made a good point in suggesting one needs to stay close to the Scriptures and discuss it from that point of view. (Hope I said it right.) Ancedotal evidence is not adequate in understanding Scripture because you can get off a limb so quickly. So the issus is what does the LORD say? And how important is it for us to understand the reason motivating God's directives/commandments? Is it essential for us to understand that motive before we obey?

As I was thinking about this issue yesterday while I was working, I was reminded of Hebrews 11, the faith chapter. Also Galatians 3:5-6: He therefore that ministereth, to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." What would have happened had Abram debated with God's command to go sacrifice his son? He could easily have given a lot of logic reasons why it was not essential to do this thing. So, it comes down to faith: do we believe God's commands and are we willing to obey even though we do not understand the reasons? Is this not what Hebrews 11 details in the life of the saints?

Thanks for this intellectual jolt, Ron.

ginnyrose

PS: Ron, I do stand by the statement of what has happened to the Mennonites on this side of the pond during the 20th century. Ask any conservative Mennonite pastor and he will tell you the same.


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2007/1/17 11:23Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy