Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Innerfire89

Head coverings.

Recommended Posts

What is your opinions on head coverings for women?

 

And if you are a woman, do you cover your head during prayer and worship? If not, why?

 

The way I see it is the princible was lost and it's there's not much effort to bring it back, I don't blame the women of today for just learning from the examples they had, but somewhere down the line women stopped covering their heads and now it's the norm. Scripture is pretty straight forward on subject. It wasn't just a cultural thing because in Jewish culture men and women covered their heads and it was the surrounding culture because try their wouldn't be a need for Paul to address the matter.

 

This is a trivial subject in my opinion, but changing from what Scripture commands has lead to more change, too much drifting away from scripure is a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a trivial subject in my opinion, but changing from what Scripture commands has lead to more change, too much drifting away from scripure is a big deal.

The divorce rates amongst so termed Christians are extremely high, hardly different from pagans. I have no idea what the issue is, and some have speculated that the statistics don't mean much if they only apply to persons nominally associated with those denominations, and in any case the statistics do not discriminate between those initiating the divorce and those on the receiving end. However the statistics do say something about the trivialization of religion in marriage, the trivialization of marriage itself and the trivialization of God's order. It may or may not be significant that those churches with highly developed ministries are seen to be associated with the highest divorce rates. This may be due to such churches having higher numbers of uncommitted persons, but also to a subversion of God's order by too much focus being on elevated ministries that do not require the biblical and spiritual rules to be obeyed in M-F relations. M-F relations are never trivial, and those who trivialize the rules for preserving godliness in church must be deemed as nontrivially awry in their faith.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My these both posts are uniquely interesting. I hope to give answers to both innerfire89 and outlaw.

 

Innerfire89, the women who had come to Christ out of pagamism which had shaved heads were told to cover their heads. The crown of a woman was her hair, thus a woman with hair was covered. Today at least as long as i have lived and witnessed, I have never seen a woman in church with a shaved head.

 

Outlaw,I totally agree marriages today are in very serious trouble. Not only in large churches is divorce a big problem, but percent wise both small and large churches experience the same amout of divorce as does the general population. There are always a number of studies going on to prove just what the percent of marriages fail. Tragically those who say they are "Christian" have about the same percentage of failed marriages as all the rest of the United stares population. Now who really knows just how many really were born again true Christ following marriages?

 

A couple words of caution outlaw. Just suppose a genuine born again Christian has had a divorce. Just how does a church supposed to treat a divorced Christian? Are divorced Christians to be treated as second class Christians? Do we limit their ability to serve in the church? Just what areas of service can a divorced person serve in? All these questions must be examined in light of what Scripture says, but in addition the circumstance of the divorce needs to be asked. Finally keep in mind just how is sin forgiven, what sin is unforgivable? Divorce is not a unforgivable sin!

 

 

JUSTME

 

,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outlaw,I totally agree marriages today are in very serious trouble. Not only in large churches is divorce a big problem, but percent wise both small and large churches experience the same amout of divorce as does the general population.

 

Here's an interesting stat. Some 70% of Americans identify as Christian though roughly 29% actually attend church. Here's the % Divorce Likelihood

 

Protestant - Nominal

20

Protestant -Conservative

-10

Protestant - Active Conservative

-35

Catholic

-18

Catholic (nominal)

-5

Catholic - Active

-31

 

In other words, those that are Protestant - Active Conservatives have the best statistics of 35% less likelihood of divorcing than non-religious affiliation.

 

Nominal Protestants (do not attend church) have the worst statistics of 20% more likelihood of divorcing compared to those with non-religious affiliation.

 

Contrary to what’s been reported for years, the divorce rate is not 50 percent; it’s more like 30 percent among Christians. Statistically speaking, it would be much lower if self-professing Christians actually attended church. 27% to 50% lower. Which means the divorce rate among Christians would be around 15% if statistics only included Active Christians.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your opinions on head coverings for women?

 

And if you are a woman, do you cover your head during prayer and worship? If not, why?

 

The way I see it is the princible was lost and it's there's not much effort to bring it back, I don't blame the women of today for just learning from the examples they had, but somewhere down the line women stopped covering their heads and now it's the norm. Scripture is pretty straight forward on subject. It wasn't just a cultural thing because in Jewish culture men and women covered their heads and it was the surrounding culture because try their wouldn't be a need for Paul to address the matter.

 

This is a trivial subject in my opinion, but changing from what Scripture commands has lead to more change, too much drifting away from scripure is a big deal.

 

We have an article on this subject in the Reformed/Presbyterian sub-forum that may interest you Innerfire on subject of why the OPC does not require women to wear headcoverings: https://www.christforums.org/forum/c...ings-for-women

 

Here's a pretty good article on the subject from the Gospel Collation. The same arguments the OPC makes can be found in this below article:

 

Many complementarians build their case for rejecting women elders/pastors on Paul’s argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2:13–14. Paul’s prohibition cannot be culturally limited, they argue, since the apostle doesn’t argue from culture but from creation. He argues from the order of creation (“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”) and from the order of accountability in creation (“Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived”). Based on Paul’s inspired reasoning, then, complementarians conclude women may not “teach or have authority over men” (v. 12) in the context of the local church.

 

But can’t this reasoning also be applied to 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, where Paul makes a similar argument from creation to bolster his position? In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, he demonstrates that women need to have their heads covered while praying or prophesying. To prove his point, he argues from creation, saying that the woman was created from man (“For man was not made from woman, but woman from man”) and for man (“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man”). Isn’t it inconsistent to reject Paul’s appeal for women to wear head coverings while affirming his command for women not to teach or have authority over men, since in both contexts Paul uses virtually the same (creation-related) reasoning?

 

This apparent inconsistency is raised by Craig Keener when he writes, “Although many churches would use arguments [from the order of creation] to demand the subordination of women in all cultures, very few accept Paul’s arguments [in 1 Cor. 11] as valid for covering women’s heads in all cultures. . . . We take the argument as transculturally applicable in one case [1 Tim. 2], but not so in the other [1 Cor. 11]. This seems very strange indeed.”

 

A closer examination of the two texts, however, shows it’s consistent to reject the need for women to wear head coverings (1 Cor. 11) while affirming they are not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2). The reason for this distinction is that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul only indirectly uses the argument from creation to affirm head coverings for women. The direct application of his reasoning is to show that creation affirms gender and role distinctions between men and women. Therefore, Paul’s argument from creation which demonstrates men and women are distinct cannot be culturally relegated. The application of this principle (i.e., head coverings), then, can and does change with culture. In contrast, the argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2 applies directly to Paul’s prohibition, and therefore is not culturally conditioned.

 

Argument from Creation (vv. 7–9)

 

In 1 Corinthians 11:7–9 Paul writes:

 

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

Paul is not directly making the case that head coverings are needed for women when they pray or prophesy. He doesn’t say: “A woman must have her head covered when she prays or prophesies. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” Instead, Paul uses the Genesis creation account to affirm his previous statement that “woman is the glory of man.”

 

Even in verse 7 when Paul explains why a man must not cover his head (“since he is the image and glory of God”), the focus isn’t so much that a head covering is wrong in itself but on the disgrace or shame it brings. It’s inaccurate to claim Paul uses an argument from creation to affirm the need for women to wear head coverings. Instead, Paul appeals to creation to demonstrate the differences between men and women that God established from the beginning—and violating these distinctions brings shame instead of glory.

 

 

Five Surrounding Arguments

 

 

This interpretation is supported by a number of clues found in the context of the passage:

 

1. Argument from Headship (v. 3)

 

The manner in which Paul introduces his discussion strongly suggests head coverings are not his main concern. In verse 3 he states, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” It seems obvious something more important is at stake since Paul clarifies the functional relationship between man and Christ, woman and man, and Christ and God. In their relationship, the man has authority over the woman just as Christ has authority over the man and God the Father has authority over Christ. Functionally, the wife is under her husband’s loving authority and therefore must demonstrate her submissiveness by wearing a head covering.

 

2. Argument from Hairstyles (v. 6)

 

Paul’s comparison of a woman who prays or prophesies without a head covering to a woman with a man’s haircut also signifies that the main issue at stake is gender and role distinctions, not merely a piece of cloth on one’s head. In verse 6 Paul explains, “For if a woman does not cover her head, 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). Just as it’s wrong for a woman to blur the gender distinctions by wearing a man’s hairstyle, so too it’s wrong for a woman to blur such distinctions by not covering her head while praying or prophesying. Paul presses this analogy by saying if a woman wants to disgrace both herself and her husband by having a man’s hairstyle, she might as well go all the way and shave off her hair.

 

3. Argument from the Nature of Head Coverings (v. 10)

 

It’s important to notice the passive nature of a head covering. A head covering was a sign or symbol pointing to a greater reality. It had no meaning in itself, but was a concrete expression of an intangible truth. Thus, Paul isn’t concerned with head coverings per se. Rather, he’s concerned with the meaning that wearing a head covering conveys.

 

4. Argument from Nature (vv. 14–15)

 

Verses 14 and 15 state: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” By using the term “nature” Paul isn’t referring to culture or “social conventions” but to God’s design in creation (cf. Rom 1:26–27). God created women to have longer hair than men and thus nature teaches us it’s not fitting for a man to have long hair and appear like a woman. Paul’s argument from nature, then, doesn’t directly prove women must wear head coverings but that the differences between men and women are part of God’s creational design. Because the distinctions between men and women are part of God’s plan, it’s imperative the Corinthian women wear head coverings.

 

5. Argument from Practice (v. 16)

 

In verse 16 Paul writes, “We have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” According to Paul, the wearing of head coverings wasn’t limited to the church at Corinth but was a custom in all the churches. Such a universally accepted custom suggests the presence of an underlying (transcultural) principle governing the need for such a practice. Paul’s argument, then, is women must wear head coverings when praying or prophesying because of a more important underlying issue—God created men and women differently, and we must not seek to eliminate such distinctions.

 

 

Distinction from 1 Timothy 2:12

 

 

Unlike 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:12 is based directly on creation. In other words, Paul’s appeal to the creation of Adam before Eve demonstrates the different roles God established based on creation. Therefore, the order of creation becomes the reason why Paul prohibits women from teaching men. The Genesis account gives the reason why a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man. Because 1 Timothy 2:12 is based on creation, it transcends cultures.

 

But Paul’s argument from creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 is not directly given to mandate women must wear head coverings. Rather, his argument from creation explains how man is the image and glory of God, and how the woman is the glory of man. Christian women are not required to wear head coverings today when praying, since the symbol of a woman’s head being covered is different today than it was during the time of Paul (at least in many cultures). Consequently, Paul’s argument from creation is only indirectly linked to the need for head coverings.

 

The transcultural truth that undergirded Paul’s admonition, however, still applies for us today. Women are different from men, and this distinction must be maintained in the church and in the family. In contrast, Paul’s argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2:13–14 directly follows the prohibition for women not to teach or have authority over men. Thus, verses 13 and 14 are best taken as the grounds for that prohibition, and they are transcultural. Therefore, the command for women not to teach or have authority over men should be upheld in the church today.

 

Source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...head-coverings

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The divorce rates amongst so termed Christians are extremely high, hardly different from pagans. I have no idea what the issue is, and some have speculated that the statistics don't mean much if they only apply to persons nominally associated with those denominations, and in any case the statistics do not discriminate between those initiating the divorce and those on the receiving end. However the statistics do say something about the trivialization of religion in marriage, the trivialization of marriage itself and the trivialization of God's order. It may or may not be significant that those churches with highly developed ministries are seen to be associated with the highest divorce rates. This may be due to such churches having higher numbers of uncommitted persons, but also to a subversion of God's order by too much focus being on elevated ministries that do not require the biblical and spiritual rules to be obeyed in M-F relations. M-F relations are never trivial, and those who trivialize the rules for preserving godliness in church must be deemed as nontrivially awry in their faith.

 

Just to be clear, I find the outward smybol of head covering to be trivial, not the order of God-man-woman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Innerfire89, the women who had come to Christ out of pagamism which had shaved heads were told to cover their heads. The crown of a woman was her hair, thus a woman with hair was covered. Today at least as long as i have lived and witnessed, I have never seen a woman in church with a shaved head.

 

 

 

,

 

Not trying to be rude, but that doesn't make sense.

Now if the covering is hair, then Paul would be saying that a bald woman is as shamful as a bald woman. What we see is that Paul compares an uncoveres head to a bald head. Cor. 11:5 it is just as though her head were shaved. Pual couldn't say that if their heads were already shaved.

Cor. 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. A bald woman can not have her hair cut off.

Edited by Innerfire89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple words of caution outlaw. Just suppose a genuine born again Christian has had a divorce. Just how does a church supposed to treat a divorced Christian? Are divorced Christians to be treated as second class Christians? Do we limit their ability to serve in the church? Just what areas of service can a divorced person serve in? All these questions must be examined in light of what Scripture says, but in addition the circumstance of the divorce needs to be asked. Finally keep in mind just how is sin forgiven, what sin is unforgivable? Divorce is not a unforgivable sin!

Paul himself seems to have been divorced because he was a Pharisee and so expected to be married (I read). Presumably his wife left him. The innocent party is innocent, as Christ himself says. The guilty party must be excommunicated (1 Cor 5) etc. As for historical sins, of someone converted, well I suppose they must be allowed to attend church, but the NT suggests that there are restrictions. A man with two wives, or presumably, a man who divorces and remarries and is culpable of the divorce, may not attain any church office, but I would allow him to be an evangelist. A woman who has not been faithful to her husband may not be added to the list of church dependent widows.

 

Yet the situation is perhaps a little more complex than this in the modern day, because divorce often entails the agency of the State and it arguable that anyone who goes to the State to get a divorce is indulging in apostasy, as the State divorce system represents antichrist. Thus if a woman culpable of divorce continues to receive alimony from her ex husband pursuant to using the resources of the State, how could she ever be admitted as a Christian? Every case will have to be decided on its merits, but I think the real issue is that "no fault divorce" as practised in paganism, under State rules, has absolutely no place in the church of God.

 

Edited by outlawState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a pretty good article on the subject from the Gospel Collation......

 

A closer examination of the two texts, however, shows it’s consistent to reject the need for women to wear head coverings (1 Cor. 11) while affirming they are not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2). The reason for this distinction is that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul only indirectly uses the argument from creation to affirm head coverings for women. The direct application of his reasoning is to show that creation affirms gender and role distinctions between men and women. Therefore, Paul’s argument from creation which demonstrates men and women are distinct cannot be culturally relegated. The application of this principle (i.e., head coverings), then, can and does change with culture. In contrast, the argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2 applies directly to Paul’s prohibition, and therefore is not culturally conditioned.

 

.....Paul is not directly making the case that head coverings are needed for women when they pray or prophesy. He doesn’t say: “A woman must have her head covered when she prays or prophesies. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” Instead, Paul uses the Genesis creation account to affirm his previous statement that “woman is the glory of man.”

The Pauline conclusion is brutal:

 

" If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor 11;16,

 

This is nothing to do with "culture" whatever that word means. It is a direct command for women to show that they are under authority. It is a command to be observed in all churches of God. Of course any church can disobey the teaching. The question for that church then becomes, "Is it a true church of God?" On that point, people will vote with their feet, and they've been voting to leave for some time now.

 

Can you spot a correlation between the great rise of atheism in the present day and the general abandonment of head coverings, which were universally practiced in nearly all churches until the latter half of the 20th century?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was growing up women , young ladies, even little girls wore new Easter Sunday outfits with nice white gloves and a cute hat to church. That has gradually disappeared , also. But I don't see a correlation between that and the rise of atheism.

 

Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. An atheist is not going to go to church Period.

 

Slacks are often worn to church by women. A lot of that is due to women wearing slacks to work for the sake of modesty. Women are probably not going to have a separate wardrobe for once a week / one hour a day church service. So, yes, the dress code for church has changed a great deal. Most anything is acceptable --- the idea being that at least that person is in church hearing about God.

 

Is there possibly some legalism being seen here. Is the 'true church of God' dependent on women wearing a covering on their head? Or maybe a 'good work' involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was growing up women , young ladies, even little girls wore new Easter Sunday outfits with nice white gloves and a cute hat to church. That has gradually disappeared , also. But I don't see a correlation between that and the rise of atheism.

 

Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. An atheist is not going to go to church Period.

 

Slacks are often worn to church by women. A lot of that is due to women wearing slacks to work for the sake of modesty. Women are probably not going to have a separate wardrobe for once a week / one hour a day church service. So, yes, the dress code for church has changed a great deal. Most anything is acceptable --- the idea being that at least that person is in church hearing about God.

 

Is there possibly some legalism being seen here. Is the 'true church of God' dependent on women wearing a covering on their head? Or maybe a 'good work' involved?

You don't see a correlation, but I do. The correlation is in the consequences of failing to recognize the divine order, which is, God over Christ over Man over Woman over Animal in 1 Cor 11:3. If you recognize it, you are not an atheist. But anything that subverts any part of the divine order will promote atheism. I agree that atheists seem completely out of it, but one of the reasons for it is the example of the Christian witness that is so poor in this day and age. Christians just don't seem to stand out from the world, at least not where I live, which is not the USA.

 

Each and every part of the divine order has been subverted down the ages. First it was God over Christ, by arianism and by modalism, and then it was Christ over Man, when the Pope became the vicar of Christ on earth, which in reality meant he subverted faith in Christ by Roman law or the Justinian Code to be more precise, and finally the last part of the order to be subverted was Man over Woman in the latter days, which had led to the de facto abolition of biblical marriage by the modern state and the exponential rise in divorce.

 

As for legalism? No, I think it is rather the case that those who don't practice the apostolic teaching are antinomians, or just misguided, to be less contentious. I have never heard a sermon on 1 Cor 11:3 in my entire life in a church that does not keep the apostolic practice. Yet there are plenty of churches that do, especially in third world countries, and also Free Presbyterians, Free Church of Scotland, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and many brethren churches, and some but not all eastern orthodox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not trying to be rude, but that doesn't make sense.

Now if the covering is hair, then Paul would be saying that a bald woman is as shamful as a bald woman. What we see is that Paul compares an uncoveres head to a bald head. Cor. 11:5 it is just as though her head were shaved. Pual couldn't say that if their heads were already shaved.

Cor. 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. A bald woman can not have her hair cut off.

 

Perhaps you might consider digging into the commentaries and getting the history of that time period. Several good study Bible have this as well. So its not orignal with me. Blessings.

 

 

justme

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul himself seems to have been divorced because he was a Pharisee and so expected to be married (I read). Presumably his wife left him. The innocent party is innocent, as Christ himself says. The guilty party must be excommunicated (1 Cor 5) etc. As for historical sins, of someone converted, well I suppose they must be allowed to attend church, but the NT suggests that there are restrictions. A man with two wives, or presumably, a man who divorces and remarries and is culpable of the divorce, may not attain any church office, but I would allow him to be an evangelist. A woman who has not been faithful to her husband may not be added to the list of church dependent widows.

 

Yet the situation is perhaps a little more complex than this in the modern day, because divorce often entails the agency of the State and it arguable that anyone who goes to the State to get a divorce is indulging in apostasy, as the State divorce system represents antichrist. Thus if a woman culpable of divorce continues to receive alimony from her ex husband pursuant to using the resources of the State, how could she ever be admitted as a Christian? Every case will have to be decided on its merits, but I think the real issue is that "no fault divorce" as practised in paganism, under State rules, has absolutely no place in the church of God.

 

Would it be possible for you to share where you found the information Paul was divorced? i have never read that in any of the commentaries I have available to me. The idea of Paul being divorced does not seem likely to me, is there any possibility of a misunderstanding here?

 

justme

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pauline conclusion is brutal:

 

" If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." 1 Cor 11;16,

 

This is nothing to do with "culture" whatever that word means. It is a direct command for women to show that they are under authority. It is a command to be observed in all churches of God. Of course any church can disobey the teaching. The question for that church then becomes, "Is it a true church of God?" On that point, people will vote with their feet, and they've been voting to leave for some time now.

 

Can you spot a correlation between the great rise of atheism in the present day and the general abandonment of head coverings, which were universally practiced in nearly all churches until the latter half of the 20th century?

 

Yes the head covering was a cultural issue for that time in that particular church. To suggest that women today where head coverings is a lack of understanding of Paul's intention for that unique church at that unique time in that culture. For an additional example of culture in Scripture we only have to look at foot washing. We no longer walk long distances on dirt paths. Most of travel by vehicles, buses, trains, planes, bikes, horses, buggies, but seldom do people come to visit with such dirty feet that they need their feet washed. However some churches practice it as a sign of humility and love for one another.

 

You have carried your point way too far. To say that Paul's intention for all women, everywhere, to wear head covering for all time is not understanding the reason he said this. Women who saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that before being saved, had been served as temple cult prostitutes had shaved heads. Jewish converted women had long hair, and therefore their heads were covered, no additional covering was required for them. Paul wanted women with shaved heads to cover their heads until the glory of a woman had returned, long hair God natural covering for a woman ....her hair.

 

 

 

justme

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would it be possible for you to share where you found the information Paul was divorced? i have never read that in any of the commentaries I have available to me. The idea of Paul being divorced does not seem likely to me, is there any possibility of a misunderstanding here?

justme

The "information" is what can be deduced from his confession to being (a) a pharisee (Phl 3:4) , and (b) agamos (unmarried) (1 Cor 7:8).

 

In 1 Cor 7;8, Gk: agamos is paired with "widows" suggesting it refers to a male who may have been previously married. Also see 1 Cor 7:11. Celibacy was unusual in Judaism. Rabbis had to be married. If Paul was aiming to become a Rabbi, as is likely, then it is likely that he was married.

 

It's a probability deduction only, but what is known for certain is that agamos included those who had separated & divorced (NT does not appear to make any distinction between these two modern states cf 1 Cor 7:11). Thus Paul never excludes the possibility that he was divorced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the head covering was a cultural issue for that time in that particular church. To suggest that women today where head coverings is a lack of understanding of Paul's intention for that unique church at that unique time in that culture. For an additional example of culture in Scripture we only have to look at foot washing. We no longer walk long distances on dirt paths. Most of travel by vehicles, buses, trains, planes, bikes, horses, buggies, but seldom do people come to visit with such dirty feet that they need their feet washed. However some churches practice it as a sign of humility and love for one another.

You are ignoring the issue that headcoverings were almost universally practised by most Christian denominations till the latter half of the 20th century.

 

In a secular age, where values are more often than not defined by atheists, why are you so keep to promote abandonment of headcoverings as "culture?"

 

In 1 Cor 11, Paul is making a stand against atheist "culture" in the church of God.

 

You have carried your point way too far. To say that Paul's intention for all women, everywhere, to wear head covering for all time is not understanding the reason he said this. Women who saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that before being saved, had been served as temple cult prostitutes had shaved heads. Jewish converted women had long hair, and therefore their heads were covered, no additional covering was required for them. Paul wanted women with shaved heads to cover their heads until the glory of a woman had returned, long hair God natural covering for a woman ....her hair.

justme

I disagree, and suggest the argument that long hair suffices is a crude misinterpretation. 1Co 11:5 "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved."

 

So your theory that long hair suffices as a covering in the 1 Cor 11 context is ruled out by 1 Cor 11:5 being rendered meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So your theory that long hair suffices as a covering in the 1 Cor 11 context is ruled out by 1 Cor 11:5 being rendered meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

 

 

I think the theory Justme is referring to is from a little bit of extra-biblical historical context. Pagan temple prostitutes had shaven heads and they were in the midst of those in Christian worship. More than one commentator points out this extra historical information.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes the head covering was a cultural issue for that time in that particular church. To suggest that women today where head coverings is a lack of understanding of Paul's intention for that unique church at that unique time in that culture. For an additional example of culture in Scripture we only have to look at foot washing. We no longer walk long distances on dirt paths. Most of travel by vehicles, buses, trains, planes, bikes, horses, buggies, but seldom do people come to visit with such dirty feet that they need their feet washed. However some churches practice it as a sign of humility and love for one another.

 

You have carried your point way too far. To say that Paul's intention for all women, everywhere, to wear head covering for all time is not understanding the reason he said this. Women who saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that before being saved, had been served as temple cult prostitutes had shaved heads. Jewish converted women had long hair, and therefore their heads were covered, no additional covering was required for them. Paul wanted women with shaved heads to cover their heads until the glory of a woman had returned, long hair God natural covering for a woman ....her hair.

 

 

 

justme

 

I've heard that before, but a few parts of the head covering verse that don't seem to match with the claim. I'll highlight where I see the contradictions between the claim and Scripture.

 

1 Cor. 11:3-6 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off, she should cover her head.

 

Now if we have a bald woman, how much hair could be cut off from her head?

If her hair is a covering and she is uncovered by being bald, then Paul is comparing a bald woman to a bald woman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "information" is what can be deduced from his confession to being (a) a pharisee (Phl 3:4) , and (b) agamos (unmarried) (1 Cor 7:8).

 

In 1 Cor 7;8, Gk: agamos is paired with "widows" suggesting it refers to a male who may have been previously married. Also see 1 Cor 7:11. Celibacy was unusual in Judaism. Rabbis had to be married. If Paul was aiming to become a Rabbi, as is likely, then it is likely that he was married.

 

It's a probability deduction only, but what is known for certain is that agamos included those who had separated & divorced (NT does not appear to make any distinction between these two modern states cf 1 Cor 7:11). Thus Paul never excludes the possibility that he was divorced.

 

Unless you are practicing Greek on a daily basis, to extract a single word out of a verse can be misleading. You have to extract the root word and its meaning or it can be totally out of context. I totally disagree with your assumption that Paul was divorced.

 

,Please. if you can state some source beyond yourself, that states Paul was divorced. I would like to know of it, but I sincerely doubt you will find any authoritative that agrees with you.

 

 

justme

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the theory Justme is referring to is from a little bit of extra-biblical historical context. Pagan temple prostitutes had shaven heads and they were in the midst of those in Christian worship. More than one commentator points out this extra historical information.

I accept that there is that unique historical context, but I would see context in a slightly wider sense of atheist culture being impressed upon the church, with the freedom from headcoverings being part of a concerted drive by these "emancipated" women (and men). As such it is little different to today, where hordes of semi-atheist "emancipated" women and men are churned out by anti-religious education system(s), and who expect the churches to conform to their culture. Paul says "no."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unless you are practicing Greek on a daily basis, to extract a single word out of a verse can be misleading. You have to extract the root word and its meaning or it can be totally out of context. I totally disagree with your assumption that Paul was divorced.

 

,Please. if you can state some source beyond yourself, that states Paul was divorced. I would like to know of it, but I sincerely doubt you will find any authoritative that agrees with you.

justme

I never pleaded myself or any other source as an authority, nor did I ever make any such categorical assertion as you want to imply. Straw man issue that you are using in an inquisitorial manner. I suggested it was more probable than not give prevailing Jewish customs of early marriage, and given that the word that Paul used to describe himself is fully compatible with being divorced or separated. Paul also refers to an unknown thorn in his flesh. If it wasn't an illness, and there is no indication that it was, it may have been a marital issue. There are many things we don't know and will never know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,Please. if you can state some source beyond yourself, that states St. Paul was divorced. I would like to know of it, but I sincerely doubt you will find any authoritative that agrees with you.

I've seen several discussions of this mentioned including claims that he divorced his wife to join the Christian church or that he was widowed, but the only reason I have heard put forward for St. Paul to be married at all is the same one used to claim that Jesus was married: because Rabbis had to have wives. On its own that doesn't seem like strong evidence. After all they both did many things during their days that were not normal for the time.

 

There's a theory I saw in one book which suggested that Paul was young at the time of his conversion on the road to Damascus, and therefore had not married yet as he was building his standing so he could make an appropriate match to further his station in the community. When he converted, everything changed.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the head covering was a cultural issue for that time in that particular church.

 

When people encounter a command in the Bible they don't like, they often say that it was something that only applied to that specific culture.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When people encounter a command in the Bible they don't like, they often say that it was something that only applied to that specific culture.

 

And there are those things that Did only apply to that particular time in history in 'that' culture.

 

And temple prostitution is one of them.

 

That reasoning is usually used by homosexuals.

 

As for Paul and his thorn in the flesh -- I've understood it to be his eyesight.

 

The singleness -- my understanding in That -- Paul's comments are referring to men who have more of a sex drive than others. If a man can function in ministry as a single person, that would be better. Otherwise he's having to please his wife as well. If he's having lust problems -- then he's better to get a wife of his own so he can have those needs met.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen several discussions of this mentioned including claims that he divorced his wife to join the Christian church or that he was widowed, but the only reason I have heard put forward for St. Paul to be married at all is the same one used to claim that Jesus was married: because Rabbis had to have wives. On its own that doesn't seem like strong evidence. After all they both did many things during their days that were not normal for the time.

 

There's a theory I saw in one book which suggested that Paul was young at the time of his conversion on the road to Damascus, and therefore had not married yet as he was building his standing so he could make an appropriate match to further his station in the community. When he converted, everything changed.

 

 

 

1 Cor. 7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say; it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy