Jim B
Well-Known Member
Why is something so trivial still being discussed? Wearing a head covering or not, like dressing appropriately, is just a matter of being polite according to local custom.
Is it ok for a man to pray while wearing a head covering? Paul told the Corinthians it was NOT ok.
- Thread starter Patrick1966
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
My bad I meant established. You love the word tradition too much and I think you may use it in the modern sense as a practice. That is not what Paul said when he used the word tradition- it means teaching or ordinance.
All words convey an idea and Paul was conveying an ordinance, not an idea. You are getting to philosophical over this simple passage.
This is incorrect. If Paul meant equality of the sexes in worship- He would never declared woman must cover their heads when praying or prophesying in the assembly of the saints- or church as we say. YOu are adding too much that doesn't belong here.
But Paul did not say this- this is you philosophizing. Paul simply said a woman must cover head in the assembly of the saints.
You are philosophizing way too much over what this simply says.
1 Corinthians 11
King James Version
11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
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.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Paul defneds his command by citing nature, teaching and the practice in all teh churches.
A woman praying or prophesying in the assembly needs to have her head covered. Anything else is adding to this passage and specific subject
Sorry, you need to learn Greek. aangelos is only defined as a messenger, envoy, angel or messenger from God! Period! You simply can't redefine words because it suits you.
Well as Paul is not talking about behavior in the general public- your point is irrelevant. Paul is addressing conduct in the assembly or church service! gentile women routinely went uncovered in public, including gentile women believers. Paul is not addressing out in public.
Until the 1960's through the 1980's women always had a covering on her head in church services of believing churches. This naked head is a new cultural thing. And no the larger question is not what message is it conveying. but What does the bible speak and is it a call to obey a specific ordinance for the church!
That answer is yes- regardless of what message it conveys to the world.
Always Believing
Member
Almost correct, but you're getting there little by little. It says if a woman cuts her hair like a man, she might as well shave it all off, so far as God is concerned.
Whether the length covers the head or leaves the head uncovered. The Bible does not specifically say when the head is covered or not, because God does not have to draw lines on a map for His people. We are expected to have enough reasonable sense to know the difference.
It's the same as the line between drinking wine and getting drunk. Little children can see the difference plainly. That's why they used to say, 'Look, it's a girl!' To the hippies when America still had a form of godliness as a nation.
When some hippies became Christians, they brought in hippy hair for men, and being fair, they allowed for men's haircuts of women.
By not teaching against sin, we allow for sin.
That is prayer and prophecy anywhere anytime. We are the same in public, as in private. (Except for the marriage bed. ;) )
You regress. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Woman, not man. I'll not be correcting this anymore. If you want to say men having men's haircuts means men should go bald, then you're not serious enough to deal with.
It's not. Hair should be if given a choice. Do you think the NAZI's shaved the hair of women Jews for health reasons?
If for any reason a woman's hair does not cover her head, then she can wear a covering instead. But ti wilfully get a man's haircut is the dishonor to God, and He says just shave it all off and quit playing games.
Exactly. God is the God of nature, who's law of creation teaches the handiwork of God. This natural law is written into the doctrine of the apostles for the church to do.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Of course, the ordinance is "remove your head covering when praying or prophesying." Contrary to what you might think, that is the ONLY ordinance he delivered to the Corinthians. Before he wrote his letter. He will deliver other ordinances in this letter.
You seem to be missing the point. Words are not the only way we communicate ideas. If I nod my head up and down I am conveying agreement without using words. If I raise my thumb up in the air I convey the idea of satisfaction or approval. If I wave my hand, I convey the idea of recognition, or I might be saying "hello" or "goodbye". Many behaviors convey meaning.
As Paul says, if a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonors his head. How can this be true if wearing a head covering has no meaning at all? Removing a head covering conveys the idea of respect -- it's a sign of respect to remove the head covering. Get it? Behaviors have meaning.
But the opposite is true for a woman, as he says. For a man, removing the head covering is a sign of respect, but for a women, wearing the head covering his a sign of respect. Understand?
Apparently you forgot verse 5, where Paul speaks about a women who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying. Verse 5 is unnecessary if women were not praying or prophesying. Paul expects both men and women to pray and prophesy.
And you forgot verse 11, where he tells you that "in the Lord" husband and wife are not independent of each other. What ever manner the husband is to respect the Lord, is the same manner in which the wife is to respect the Lord, which is a conundrum for her.
Paul is making an argument. He expects us to follow it and draw conclusions. That is what I have done. An argument is a list of connected propositions, which lead to a valid conclusion. I am attempting to trace out and track the argument for you since you appear to be confusing his premises with ordinances.
No. Paul is not commanding women to cover their heads. The women are already covering their heads, as he said, because it symbolizes her husband's authority. Her conundrum is that she also wants to honor the Lord, by uncovering her head just as her husband is doing.
Paul is speaking to those who might have reason to be contentious. He is arguing for why a woman should keep her head covered instead of uncovering her head during prayer or prophesy.
She is already covering her head. As Paul said, it is disgraceful for her to uncover it. He doesn't need to command something that is already being done.
I gave you reasons for my view, which depends on an examination of "how the word is actually used" not the dictionary.
The church service is public right?
Where else are people going to see her head uncovered. Really, why make this difficult?
Well what a good boy you are. Look, Paul is not like you suggest. Unlike a strict disciplinarian, he argues for his position and gives reasons for why we should do as he says. And he expects that if the reason is no longer a viable reason, that we are not obligated to obey blindly.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Not correct:
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
This is not talking a mans haircut- be to have her head bald! In many pagan cultures that would equate to being a temple prostitute.
This how long a womans hair is(if it will cover her head) is your argument, but not what Paul what! Paul said when a woman prays or prophesies she needs to have a man made covering on her head! Period. Look it up in the greek. Then you won't have to resort to describing how long hair is is it a mans or womans cut is it enough hair to cover her head etc.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well the n maybe that is in 32rd or 4th cornthians for it certainly is not the language of 1st Corinthians 11.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
And if you accepted this as Paul wrote it- we would not be debating, but you insist a woman should pray or prophesy without a man made covering on her head- which is the exact opposite of what Paul teaches here.
But if Paul conveyed his thoughts with signs, symbols, nods etc, this would be pertinent. but as He used written words we need to stick with that. Tryt o keep the discussion on this passage and not general things that Paul is not addressing or using.
No I did not forget them, we are discussing what Paul ordered men and woman to do in the assembly of saints we call church!
Paul called it an ordinance so it is not a premise. He is not making an argument, He is giving a command and showing why the command is to be followed.
To accurately trace out Pauls argument- you would have had to be there and know Paul and His whole thinking process. Otherwise you are simply guessing on what he might have meant. I don't accept Paul speaking in mystic terms so we have to try to discern his meanings from what he said! Especially when one comes up with a meaning that is exactly opposite of what is written.
Paulk is issuing an edict and expects us to obey. this drawing our conclusions is known in biblical parlance as privately interpreting Scripture.
Besides learning greek, you need to learn Greek, Roman and Pagan cultural history of the first century. for you are oncorrect. Jewish culture women covers their heads. Pagan cultures not necessarily so. which is why Paul had to write this about woman in church service.
This is my argument. A woman in church service needs a man made covering on her head.
Well if you can show an authoratative position that says "angelos" can mean message, I am all eyes! Otherwise every concordance, lexicon Dictionary and Greek commentary says messenger.
Now you are hyper parsing words. church service is open o the public but not in the public. But you know that! Public is the open areas where people congregate like the agora, not someone house holding a service.
So why are you? I am simply declaring what is written. It is you who is trying to discern what Paul really meant, how he actually used words, what message he was trying to convey other than what he simply spoke etc.etc. Paul said in church a man prays or prophesies without a man made covering on his head. A woman has to have a man made covering on her head! That is all he ordered. Not of all this philosophical mumbo jumbo you are trying to interject here.
Show me from the Bible where you draw that conclusion. Or is that you simply privately interpreting for yourself.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
This is not an ordinance. This is an opinion, a statement of fact.
I accept it as Paul wrote it. I didn't say that a women SHOULD pray or prophesy. I maintain that Paul wants her to be free to pray or prophesy as the Lord leads. The question she is asking Paul is whether or not she should remove her head covering.
I knew you didn't understand. The head covering itself is conveying a message.
Don't you get it? I wasn't talking about Paul. I was talking about the head covering. It is the head covering itself that conveys meaning. He tells you quite clearly that the woman's head covering is a symbol of authority. (vs 10) I shouldn't need to tell you that symbol's convey meaning but perhaps you have never given it much thought?
Of course. But he already delivered the ordinances about removing the head covering during prayer and prophesying to the Corinthians just as he said. He praised them for keeping the ordinances he delivered. The issue here is a clarification of the ordinance as it pertains to women and the question is, should the women also remove their head covering while praying or prophesying. They are willing to obey the Lord, if that is what he wants. They simply want to know for sure.
Yes, he is giving an argument. Surely you recognize an argument don't you? The woman are in a double blind. If she removes her head covering to honor the Lord, she dishonors her husband. She want's to know if Paul's ordinance to remove the head covering while praying or prophesying applies to her also. Paul will answer no, it doesn't apply to her. And he gives his reasons for why not.
He gives facts and reasons for his commandment. When Paul was with the Corinthians he commanded them to remove the head covering when praying or prophesying. The women wrote to Paul wanting to know if this applied to them also? He says no, and he gives his reasons.
Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Here, he argues that, although wearing a head covering while praying or prophesying dishonor's the Lord, the woman should wear the head covering while praying or prophesying "because of the angels" and by "angels" he means, "what the symbol represents. If she removes her head covering, not only does she brings shame to her husband, she brings shame upon herself in same manner as a woman who shaves her head. For this reason, Paul tells the women to keep the head covering on her head while praying and prophesying.
No. Written arguments are sufficient. All one needs to do is follow the logic.
We don't need to guess. All we need to do is pay attention.
I didn't say that Paul was speaking in mystical terms. I don't know where you got that idea.
This goes without saying. But he bases his commandment on the basis that wearing a head covering has symbolic meaning within his culture. He tells us that the women should continue to wear the head covering because of the message it conveys.
Really? What a useless and mistaken notion. Of course Paul argues his position and of course he expects his readers to draw conclusions from his argument. Think about it. If Paul desired, all he need do is write: Women should keep their head covering on. Period. End of story. But instead, he argues for half a chapter why she should.
I don't need to learn Greek, Roman, or Pagan culture at all. As I said, Paul is making an argument and he provides all the information that I need to draw a conclusion.
As I said, Paul gives me all the information I need to know. He tells me that it is a shame for a woman to remove her head covering. I simply take his word for it.
She already has a head covering on her head. Paul is not commanding her to wear one. She is already wearing one. Why? Because as Paul said, it is shameful to remove it. She knows that as well as he does. The commandment is to keep it on EVEN during prayer and prophesying.
I already showed you one.
Sure. Okay. But I showed where Paul used it to mean "message." Who you going to believe, a dictionary or Paul?
Why does that matter? In order for a head covering to be a symbol, it has to be seen. That's the point.
No, you are declaring what you think Paul means to say, same as me.
That is not ALL he said.
Paul tells you the reason why the head covering is shameful for a woman to remove. How can it be shameful if it doesn't mean anything?
Jim B
Well-Known Member
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why is this trivial issue being discussed ad infinitum? Unless you believe that Paul, who opposed being under the law, is creating a new law, it's time to leave this unimportant issue alone! If one has a heart toward God, that is all that counts.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I hear and understand you Jim. But I enter these types of discussions because I am a student of Biblical exegesis and this is an interesting question. When is a commandment or an ordinance universal for all time and when is it situational? In this thread, I am taking the position that head coverings are situational and depend solely on the symbolic meaning of wearing the head covering.
All I know, from my many years of experience, is that wearing a head covering is typically meaningless, except in certain situations like the military. The only time I wear a hat is to keep the rain or the sun off my bald head. :) That's it. And I take it off when going indoors just as my mother and my teachers taught me. :) Right?
Paul doesn't create new "laws" per se, but he does establish "practices" among the churches, which may or may not be relevant today. The classic example of this is the "Love feast", which Paul started in Corinth. Later he regretted it. Oh well.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
If you bothered to do a word study in Greek you would find out "tradition" means an ordinance.
And Pauls answer is no.
Yes that they are obeying the words instructed to them in the Lord.
Then why do you argue she is freee to take it off? PAul says to keep it on because she is under authority. You are very confusing.
This is not in the Passage and is your own supposition.
Again you are seeking to redefine the word "angelos" Teh word angel does not mean what the symbol represents at all.
NO he doesn't expect people to draw conclusions. He was very clear in his instructions and he expects people to obey because of the Lord!
And He wwrote and spoke them in Greek. You should verify the language! that is sloppy scholarship on your part.
Yes he is commanding her to wear a man made covering. But that takes a look into the Greek to see the two words used for covering and their totally different meanings, so you will never know for you said you don't need the Greek.
No all you showed me was an opinion. Not an actual real use of the word in the redefining you did.
What a stupid argument! Paul knew the word angelos only means messenger so he would not have used it to mean message. So I believe Paul who has been multiple verified by Greek experts down through the ages. the two words for message in the NT are "presbeia" or "angelia". Now before you go all agog at the similarity between angel and message- they do share a similar root. It is the ending that differentitates a messenger form a message.
So why do you reject that Paul is not commanding all the churches for women to wear a man made covering on their head?
No I am simply saying what Paul said using teh definitions of the words he used. YOu are trying to redefine the argument by saying he is conveying other messages and asking people to maske their own minds up and using "logically". If Paul wanted women to not have a man made head covering- He would have said so.
IN the passage yes he said more, but the crux of the argument is men pray without a man made covering, women must put one on.
And that is my argument. but you restrict it to just hair and Paul said in the church she must have a man made covering, whether you wish to explore the words Paul used or not.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
During Paul's time the head covering signify respect for her husband. Today it doesn't. Why does Paul want a woman to keep her head covering on? Because of what it represented in that time and place.
No, it is not a supposition; rather, it is a conclusion. I might be wrong about what Paul intends for the reader to conclude. But it does not follow, if I were wrong, that Paul is not making an argument, which he is.
Paul has been asked to take a position on an important subject matter. For this reason, he explains the issue and gives evidence for his position, and he encourage his readers to consider his reasons as the basis for his ruling on the issue.
The structure of this passage reveals Paul's purpose. He intends to make a case for why women should not remove their head covering while praying or prophesying. His defense is based on cultural assumptions, known information and established facts.
He isn't commanding that the women wear the head coverings. Wives are ALREADY wearing the head covering because it represents honor and respect for her husband. Whether or not she prays or prophesies in church, she will continue to wear her head covering just as she has always done, even before Paul came to town.
If you don't see this as an argument, then you will remain totally confused about what he is saying.
Why would I seek to redefine a word? How would that serve my goal to understand what Paul means to say? It doesn't. Rather, I am seeking what Paul meant to say, which I why I want to know what he meant by the phrase : διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους "because of the angels."
Angels = head coverings
Consider for the moment the NASB translation I just gave. Why did the translators not give the English meaning of ἀγγέλους, as "messagers"? While it is true that "angelos" CAN mean "semi-divine being" This isn't the only meaning. τοὺς ἀγγέλους refers to any sort of messenger, whether the messenger is an angelic being or something else. The word "angel" can refer to anyone or anything that announces or tells, even a bird of augury can be an "angel."
In this context, the "angels" are the head coverings women wear, announcing or telling those who see them that the women wearing the head coverings are under a husband's authority. If you like the "angel" is the head covering. Why does Paul refer to the head coverings as angels? Because the head coverings are messengers. Head coverings, on a woman's head, signify a husband's authority.
Paul is telling the Corinthian women, you want to know why you should leave your head covering on your head when you pray or prophesy? Because your head covering sends a message. To wear the head covering, as Paul asserted earlier, a women honors her head.
Why else would Paul give reasons, if he didn't expect readers to consider them?
Of course, but the women could not obey Paul's instructions because if a woman removes her head covering as Paul instructed, she would bring dishonor to her husband. This is why the women wrote to Paul. And this is why Paul re-couched the practice in terms of her "head" rather than her Lord. If she did as Paul commanded, removing her head covering while praying or prophesying, she would also necessarily dishonor her husband. That is why, IN THIS LETTER, he gives her permission to wear the head covering while praying or prophesying, just as she was always doing. Why? Because the head coverings signify respect of husband, which is what a good Christian woman should do.
I already did and I showed you another passage where Paul uses the word Angelos to mean "message" rather than "angelic being." Anyone or anything can serve as a messenger, even head coverings, which convey the message, "the person wearing this head-covering respects, honors, and obeys her husband." Essentially Paul want his readers to conclude that, with respect to women, when they honor their head, which is their husband, they ALSO honor her husband's head, which is Jesus Christ. The men should remove their head covering out of respect for the Lord, and the women should keep their head covering on, which is a sign of respect for her husband, which is also a sign of respect for his head, the Lord.
No, what I said is that I don't need prior knowledge of the cultural practices at the time of writing because Paul repeats them in his argument.
Of course it was my opinion. What else did you expect? You accept another man's opinion, why not mine? Are you insulting me or calling my intelligence into question?
Think about it. All one needs to do is review the OT account. The Law was not delivered by Angelic beings. Rather, it was signs that accompanied Moses and Aaron. Paul is using the term "angels" to mean "signs" I.e. miracles that signify God's presence. In this context, a woman is accustomed to wearing a sign (an angel) of respect on her head, and Paul tells her to keep wearing it even when praying or prophesying.
If a women today should ask, "should I wear a head covering" the answer is, "what does it signify?"
It isn't a stupid argument; it's a puerile argument, the kind that kids playing in the sandbox would make. By making a puerile argument, I am giving expression to my frustration in light of your obstinance -- resolute adherence to your own ideas. While I agree with your analysis, it doesn't take into account what I am trying to say, which is true.
So that you might understand my point better, I revised my explanation above. For a woman, her head covering is a "messanger", an "angel" if you like. And the message her head-covering signifies is "I respect my husband." For this reason, Paul rules that, contrary to what her husband does, his wife should continue to wear her head covering because of the message it conveys. If she removed her head covering during prayer and prophesying, signaling her respect for Jesus Christ, she would, at the same time, signal disrespect for her husband. What is the solution to the dilemma? "Keep your hat on because respecting your husband is YOUR way to respect the Lord also." If you remove your head covering you would be sending the wrong message. While your purpose is to respect the Lord, everyone else will assume disrespect for husband is your purpose.
Paul so graciously explained his reasons, and for that reason, we have wisdom to apply those reasons in whatever culture we might live. The overarching principles are clear. A women should always respect her husband. This is manner of righteousness will always be true. If wearing a hat is symbolic of honor, then let her wear the hat. If wearing a hat has no meaning, then it doesn't matter.
Honoring and glorifying the Lord is always right and good. And if culture defines a particular behavior as the means to convey honor, then one should practice that behavior for the sake of the meaning. If removing the hat is a sign of respect, then remove the hat if that's what it means. But why remove the hat if it means nothing at all?
But Paul didn't say one way or the other. His argument assumes that the women are already wearing hats for the reason he said. They are already wearing hats out of respect for their husbands. The women are asking Paul whether they should obey his instruction or not. If they obey his instruction, then the women will bring dishonor to their husbands, which is not what anyone wants them to do. For this reason, Paul tells the women that they should leave their hat on because of the message it conveys.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well teh ordinance of a wife honoring her husband is not voided. Paul never said it was temporary- sinful human culture has!
Well you may have concluded and yes you are wrong. You are adding your own concepts and ideas and subtly redefining the passage. It is a simply passage and you muck it up with worldly defenses.
Not once did he deal with culture and if you read it without your rredefining glasses on you would know. Paul appealed to nature and then to the fact it is an ordinance for all churches- to stop people like yourself who are being contentious over this.
YOu can't be more wrong! Paul said man was made in teh image of God and woman in the image of man. For a woman to dishonor who God given head is to dishonor God! Teh rest is just you vain philosophical ramblings. Sorry for the harshness but that is the truth. You are reading your own bias into the text
.Again you place culture on par with the New Testament ordinances. Teh bible is not subject to the whims of culture. It is to be obeyed on all cultures- not rationalized, philosophized and redefined according to the passing whims of culture.
Maybe wearing a hat in many cultures of today has no meaning in a worship service, But God doe snot change according to the whimsd of culture, and it will always remain important to teh culture of those who seek to follow Jesus Christ!
Philip James
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
That's right. That's what I said. Fidelity and loyalty are universal verities. If a culture should dismiss these verities, they do so at their peril. But Paul didn't give them an ordinance concerning a husband's honor or his wife's respect of her husband. He gave them an ordinance concerning the dress code associated with prayer and prophesying (vs 4, vs 5 and vs 13)
The dress code is based on culturally accepted norms, traditions, religion, language, ethics, and values, which change from culture to culture and down through time. What might be accepted as "normal" in one culture might not be "normal" in another culture. Paul is critical of any culturally acceptable practice that violates the universal verities of truth, love, righteousness, goodness, loyalty, fidelity, or respect for another person. He is not critical of culturally acceptable practices that support universal verities.
When cultures change, the universal verities remain.
Yes, he did. Paul was critical of culture and had some things to say about pagan cultural practices. Here, however, Paul approves of the cultural practice of head covering, which signifies a woman's fidelity and respect of husband, which are good things.
Yes, Paul appealed to nature. I'm glad you finally admit it. An appeal to nature is NOT the same thing as an appeal to authority. What Paul says about the glory of a woman isn't based on scripture; it's based on observation. Paul is giving you a rational, not a Biblical basis for his opinions.
His attitude is one of humble persuasion through reason, which is why he says, "Judge for yourselves . . ." (vs 13) : is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? An authoritarian would never make an appeal to reason as Paul did. He isn't commanding the Corinthians as you suppose. He is allowing them to make up their own minds based on reasons he supplies.
And an authoritarian would never make an appeal to consensus.
I think I said that. Remember the predicate category Paul set up in the beginning. Although Jesus Christ is her LORD, and Yahweh is her GOD, her husband is her HEAD. And since the head covering signifies something about fidelity to her "head", her husband, then she should continue to wear it. That is Paul's argument in a nutshell.
Again, Paul is making an argument. An authoritarian doesn't make an argument; he simply tells you what to do. Therefore, Paul is not an authoritarian. Paul is good at making arguments, which is why he first lays down the predicate for his conclusion. Verse 3 is the predicate, which answers to the question "who is my head?" Paul is NOT answering "who is my God" He is NOT answering "who is my Lord"? Understand? He tells you plainly that the head covering is related to the question, "who is my head?" A man removes his head covering because Christ is his HEAD, not because Christ is his LORD, though that is true also. The women continues to wear her head covering during prayer and prophesying because, although her LORD is Jesus Christ, her HEAD is her husband. Follow?
No, that is NOT what I am doing. I am not placing culture on par with the New Testament. I'm saying that although truth remains a constant over time, culture changes. For this reason, a New Testament ordinance that speaks INTO a culture, might not be relevant in a different culture. Am I making sense?
How is Paul's ordinance concerning the removal of a hat relevant to a man living in a culture where men don't wear hats? I understand that our generation baulked at the concept of "situational ethics" but there is nothing wrong with situational ethics as long as we maintain and hold to the universal truths of our existence: truth, goodness, love, faith, hope, justice, loyalty, fidelity, honor and things such as these. These are constant, eternal, and without controversy among those who love the truth.
Simply put, if Paul gives us a reason why something must be done, then if the reason is removed, the practice is unnecessary. If the reason remains, then the practice should remain.
You seem to be having difficulty sorting out the eternal verities from the cultural practices that give expression to them. The eternal verities, in this instance, are (1) the glory of a woman and (2) the husband's authority over his wife. These truths will never change and are true no matter the culture. What is NOT universally true is how a culture gives expression to these truths through practices and mores. Fidelity and respect are universal verities; dress codes are not.
During Paul's time, head covering for a wife was the universally accepted cultural practice that signaled a wife's fidelity and respect. The Greeks would say that the wife was "headed." As Paul says, a woman already has a head covering on her head, which is her long hair. Granted, the glory of a woman is her long hair, but when a woman takes a man to be her "head", then the woman has been "headed" and in order to signify this situation, she dons a hat or a veil or whatever the covering was.
For a woman, wearing a head covering signified that the woman was "headed," that is "married." She took for herself a "head," that is "a husband." This idea forms the predicate for Paul's argument. While it is true that Jesus Christ is both the Lord of the husband and the wife; he is not the "head" of the wife, her husband is. So then, as such, when the husband prays or prophesies, he is to remove his head covering because Christ is his head; but when the wife prays or prophesies she is to keep her hat on because her husband, not Christ is her "head."
We misunderstand Paul if we think that he started the practice of "heading", whereby a woman signaled her fidelity and respect of her husband by wearing a head covering. No, he didn't make that an ordinance among the churches. Rather, his "ordinance" if you prefer, is that she keep wearing her head covering during prayer and prophesying.
Think about what you are saying. The ONLY God-ordained culture is found in the Torah and we know it today as "The Law of Moses." Paul used a lot of ink to make his case for why Gentiles are NOT obligated to obey God's ordained culture.
It isn't God that changes; it's culture that changes. Are women "headed" today? No. Married women no longer wear hats in order to signify that they have been "headed" by a man. But do they get married today? Yes. Today, married women accept a ring from a man, signifying his love and devotion to her and she accepts the ring and wears it on her finger in order to signify that she will remain faithful to her promise and respect his promise. We have adopted a different way, a ting rather than a hat, to give expression to our fidelity and respect. The fidelity and respect are eternal; hats and rings are not.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Paul said this to show what honor to God and to husband is in the worship service! The coverings are the physical; demonstration of the universal verities of honor, respect and loyalty. Once again Paul not once mentioned cultural norms, but nature and the fact this was an ordinance in all churches across all cultures. YOu seem to forget that the church at this time encompassed Jewish, roman and Greek Culture.
No He wasn't critical of pagan culture. Paul in his letters repeatedly said what do we have to do with teh world. Paul was addressing what men and women should do in a worship service regardless of whatever culture they find themselves in.
I have known this and written so many times, so your point here is irrelevant. Nature belongs to God and is an appeal to the author if nature. And as yuou seem to be bad at grammar--"Judge for yourselves" is a rhetorical statement. He is making an appeal that has only one answer, not giving them teh authority to make theoir own decisions as to whether men shoud be uncoverd and women covered in church. You seem to forget in you rhaste to promote your personal agenda that Paul concluded this argument thusly:
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. HIs conclusion is in direct opposition to your contention that he was promoting Corinth to judge for themselves.
Well this has been my argument from the very beginning!!!!!!!!!!!! I am so glad to see you finally have come around to agree with my initial point. IN church women are to cover their head with a man made covering to honor her head whose head is Christ. To honor her husband is to honor christ and The Father!
So we can conclude this discussion as you have agreed with my initial point.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
And how does a head covering "show" something? Think about it. Why do people wear hats? With regard to function, people wear hats to keep the sun and the rain off the head. With regard to meaning, what the hat represents, the meaning of a hat is understood by common agreement among those in the community. Removing a head covering during prayer and prophesying indicates respect only insofar as the meaning of this gesture is commonly understood among the community.
Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Here, what a woman ought to do is predicated on what her head covering means: as he says, "because of the angels." Her head covering is symbolic and she ought to wear a head covering because of what the symbol represents.
Agreed. He doesn't mention cultural norms by name, but his entire argument depends on "cultural norms" because it depends on the meaning of symbols understood among a community of people. What a person does with his or her head covering has meaning only insofar as the community shares the meaning in common with each other. The question we have on the table is whether or not PAUL himself, gave it that meaning or did the community give it that meaning?
I'm sorry, I just accidently erased the rest of my post. So please let me summarize here.
We both agree that (verse 3) is axiomatic.
We disagree whether (verses 4 and 5) are axiomatic.
In my judgment (verses 4 and 5) are NOT axiomatic because Paul argues for them with proofs. They are not eternal because his proofs are based on cultural assumptions which change over time.
Last edited:
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
After all the verbage you threw at me about things have meaning you can ask that??????????????????????
Yes and the community that it is understood by is the bible believing churches!
You call it symbolic- Paul doesn't. Nothing in the construct even implies symbolism.
What double talk! He doesn't mention cultural norms, doesn't imply them and you have the arrogance to say his argument depends on cultural norms! Especially in light of the fact he bases his argument on nature and the universal teaching of the church across all cultures! this is the height of hubris.
YOu seem to willingly wish to forget that this is an ordinance given by Paul to the churches. so whether or not the church accepts the ordinance does not remove the command to do it!
God gave it that meaning and Paul relayed that meaning to the intended audience- the body of believers!
Well Paul does not argue even once about cultural proofs. He appeals from nature and the fact it was a universal teaching in all the churches across all cultural norms.
YOur insistence to demand the passage speaks of cultural norms does not come from evidence or even implication, but from some desire within you. You do fit the definition of a contentious person Paul said!
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Teh covering paul declared a woman must wear in worship is a man made covering over her head. Period! You need to go to detail and show from Scripture why we should take this as simply a passing cultural thing and not seek to obey god in this small thing.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Again, why is something so trivial still being discussed? Wearing a head covering or not, like dressing appropriately, is just a matter of being polite according to local custom.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Two reasons.
1 Paul not once mentioned cusatom but did say this was an ordinance and teaching of all the churches across all teh local customs.
2. The greater problem is the casual redefining of words and passages of Scripture to suit a modern culture or fad or way of thinking! that is always dangerous.
This issue is minor but as Scripture says "It is the little foxes that spoil the vine"
