| Poster | Thread | jochbaptist
Member
Joined: 2010/11/24
Posts: 341
| | Re: Julius21's question | | Quote -
"Why did Paul say this?
But if any man seem to be contentious, WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GOD. (1 Cor 11:16)
I think Paul is saying, If they don't agree it's no big deal.
But, I can certainly respect cultures that do this."
I wrestled with this as well. To interpret it your way would mean that Paul just nullified everything he just said. In other words - wives should cover while praying or prophesying, but don't worry, neither we, nor the other churches do this. Such an interpretation would not make any sense. I understand Paul to be saying that - WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM (of praying uncovered), NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GOD.
This is explained quite well in here -
Head-coverings in Worship Part 4
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=26142
Bless you my Brother.
Edit - link was Part 5, should have been Part 4
_________________
J Kruger
|
|  2015/7/10 11:12 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
I wrestled with this as well. To interpret it your way would mean that Paul just nullified everything he just said. In other words - wives should cover while praying or prophesying, but don't worry, neither we, nor the other churches do this. Such an interpretation would not make any sense. I understand Paul to be saying that - WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM (of praying uncovered), NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GOD.
This is explained quite well in here -
Head-coverings in Worship Part 4
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=26142
Bless you my Brother.
Thanks, brother. I won't debate you at all. I will only share my understanding and appreciate you answering my question. I will check out the link.
Could it have been cultural? It is well known that prostitutes in Corinth went around with their hair uncovered. Occasionally Paul had reasons other than theology for saying what he did. As I understand it, one could identify prostitutes in Corinth because while most women wore some type of hat or cover on their head, the prostitutes didn't. This became challenging when Christian women chose not to be bothered with this custom. The local reasoning made it difficult to tell Christian women from prostitutes. So, Paul recommended that women cover their heads. That's why this instruction is only in that letter and not other letters. There is no instruction to the other churches about this. The Corinthian letter went to the Corinthian church. Paul was addressing the Corinthian church regarding the culture surrounding them. Like many new religious movements, the Christians across the Roman empire were accused of sexual improprieties. (This has happened throughout history, even to this day.) Paul was giving them instructions for their own good- to protect the fledgling church, and to protect Christian women from defamation. I think Paul was in the right on this. Don't give the world cause to call your faith into question through their view of your outward appearance. Basically, don't embarrass your church by looking like a hooker. As he said in another place, all things may be permissible, but not all things are a good idea.
I think we have to be careful to latch onto a tiny, insignificant thing and try to treat that as the most important issue especially when it alienates other Believers, if not in practice, then maybe secretly in the heart?
I was in a house church once, and did not know this "custom". It was supposedly an "open" meeting where everyone could share what was on their heart and my wife shared a Psalm. I was informed afterwards that she would have to wear something on her head if she wanted to speak in the future. How would that signify to anyone that my wife was submissive to me? And why do we want to prove to everyone from an outward piece of clothing that we are submissive rather than displaying the fruit of the Spirit? Do you understand what I am saying? In other words, you can wear a doily on your head but that does not mean you are submissive.
Will check your link out, now.
|
| | 2015/7/10 12:07 | |
| | Re: | | Good response Julius21. I think the topic has now been well covered, |
| | 2015/7/10 12:36 | | sermonindex
Moderator
Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada
Online! | | Re: | | Quote:
Could it have been cultural? It is well known that prostitutes in Corinth went around with their hair uncovered.
from: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-head-covering-cultural-what-about-the-corinthian-prostitutes
The Objection: In Paul’s day, prostitutes wore their hair short and did not cover their heads. Because it was customary in that culture for women to wear a head covering, failure to do so would readily identify a woman as a prostitute. Since the situation was local, a head covering is not necessary today.
R.C. Sproul says, “If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots.” 1) He goes on to say, “We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said.” 2)
In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul appeals to the creation order, nature’s witness and angels, all which transcend culture. He tells us that head covering is a part of official apostolic teaching and is the practice of all churches, everywhere. So that means a local situation in Corinth cannot explain head covering since it was the standard practice outside of Corinth as well. Earlier in Paul’s letter when he had a command that was due to the situation at the time, he mentioned it. He recommended not to marry “in view of the present distress” (1 Cor 7:26). Paul could have done the same with head coverings, but he didn’t because what was happening at the time wasn’t the reason for the command. Additionally, the fact that he commands men to remove their coverings (1 Cor 11:4) in the same sentence cannot be explained by a situation that deals only with women.
_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
|
| | 2015/7/10 12:48 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Well, I am trying to listen to the link and I am taking notes, but need to stop for awhile as the speaker has a very forceful and caustic way of speaking. He is really wanting everyone to be convinced of it rather than just exegeting the scriptures. I won't post my notes in this thread as it will look like I am debating rather than reviewing an audio recording. So, I will open another thread for the purpose of reviewing it.
Blessings. |
| | 2015/7/10 12:54 | | yuehan
Member
Joined: 2011/6/15
Posts: 562
| | Re: | | Hey Julius21 - I like that you brought up 1 Cor 11:16. It seems that translations can vary:
"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." (NKJV)
"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." (NASB)
Here is the original Greek:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-16.htm
So is it "no other practice" or "no such practice"?
|
| | 2015/7/10 12:54 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
by yuehan on 2015/7/10 12:54:36
Hey Julius21 - I like that you brought up 1 Cor 11:16. It seems that translations can vary:
"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." (NKJV)
"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." (NASB)
Here is the original Greek:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-16.htm
So is it "no other practice" or "no such practice"?
Speaker says KJV is correct and I will go with that.
1Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Paul would not be saying, "We and the Churches of God do not have any custom of contentiousness". Of course not. That would be a ridiculous statement. Christians know "contentiousness and strife" would never be elevated to a Christian custom.
Anyway, I did finish the audio, and I prayed about whether I should review it or not and I don't think it would be safe for me to review it on SI. I think everyone should listen to this particular one and I am confident that if you have the Spirit of God, He will lead you into the truth.
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=26142 |
| | 2015/7/10 13:01 | | yuehan
Member
Joined: 2011/6/15
Posts: 562
| | Re: | | Quote:
Paul would not be saying, "We and the Churches of God do not have any custom of contentiousness". Of course not. That would be a ridiculous statement. Christians know "contentiousness and strife" would never be elevated to a Christian custom.
Julius21 - I agree that the "custom" in 1 Cor 11:16 does not refer to a "custom of contentiousness".
What do you make of this verse? - "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." (1 Cor 11:10)
The implication here seems to be that the headcovering symbol is not so much for man, but as a declaration for the angels. I don't know enough to comment on this topic, but this verse doesn't seem to support the cultural argument for headcoverings.
|
| | 2015/7/10 23:56 | Profile | dspks
Member
Joined: 2006/3/15
Posts: 168
Dakotas
| | Re: Discussion Forum? | | TMK writes: "You have already been asked nicely two times to not raise objections to head coverings. This thread is for those who follow it or want to."
(not upset... just kinda confused)
What about a thread that shares the belief that Christians can consume alcohol? (Which I am not for)
Should THAT thread be only for those who follow it or want to??
This IS a "Discussion Forum"... isn't it??? :)
|
| | 2015/7/11 11:44 | Profile |
| | Re: | | "This IS a "Discussion Forum"... isn't it??? :)"
It seems to be a discussion forum mostly when it fits the beliefs of some.
I have experienced the Holy Spirit move mightily among
entire congegrations and assemblies and ourselves when not a single woman in the place could be seen wearing a head covering. How does that work?
How could God bless such gatherings if the women and men are in outword and obvious disobedience to what some here suggest are the commandments of God?
|
| | 2015/7/11 12:09 | |
|
