Bible Study should women wear head covering and men wear beards ? proof?

[Deborah13]

But I'll point out that Paul is not reprimanding the pastor at Corinth for doing something, he Paul, had already said not to do (1Corinthians 11:2) so that *particular* pastor was not a Pedophile, or woman seducer; rather the problem was the other way around in this particular church

Nope. Neither is Paul talking about women seducers. He never says the women were uncovering to seduce or tempt to anyone.

Now, back to the church setting and Paul:
Pastors are sometimes seduced by women who call attention to themselves. That practical problem existed in Christian churches all the way back to the time of Christ, and still happens today.

He never said the women were uncovering to call attention to themselves. He never says that was their intent. Where do you get that statement from?

 

[Obadiah]

Sinthesis, firstly your eisegesis of 1 Cor 11:1-16 needs some work.
Secondly, this passage has nothing to do with the Nazirites, and Samson. The Nazirite vow was a part of the Old Covenant, whereas the letter to the Corinthians is rooted squarely in the New Covenant. Introducing irrelevancies does not help anyone.

There is so much quibbling and unnecessary discussion about something which should be simply obeyed without argument (as Paul says).
1. Christian men are to wear their hair short.
2. Christian women are to leave their hair long.
3. Christian men are to uncover their heads during worhip.
4. Christian women are to cover their hair and their heads during worship.

This teaching is ALL ABOUT HEADSHIP and how it is symbolized within Christian assembles because the holy angels observe what goes on.
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.
We could put these phrases in a more "logical" order thus:
But I would have you know,
the head of Christ is God.
the head of every man is Christ;
the head of the woman is the man;

Most of the posts are going off on tangents but failing to talk about Headship and what it means. Why is there resistance to Headship? Because human beings are rebels at heart, beginning with Adam and Eve. Eve forgot who was her "head" (authority) and thereby brought calamity on the human race. Adam forgot who was his Head, and brought disaster on the human race. Now God says that if you are truly in submission to Christ as a child of God, put aside your rebellion, and recognize God-ordained Headship when you come before the Almighty to worship.

There are also other opinions on whether or not this is such a direct command to all Christians at all times as you seem to feel that it is. I have also studied this and found that I do not agree that this section of scripture is about hair, beard, and clothing style. I agree it is about he headship of Christ over the church, but Paul was addressing matters of attitude regarding conceit and rebellion at that particular time in that particular place that were manifesting themselves in hairstyles, etc. It is not the hair style or the clothing in and of itself that was the issue. It was the attitude that was being manifest that was the problem. After much study and prayer I came to the conclusion that this section of scripture was not intended as a command from God concerning fashion.

 

[Deborah13]

I've missed a bit of the thread, and am a bit confused -- why is it that you don't think this is talking about a married woman in 1Corinthians 11:10 ?

I, until two days ago, believed it was talking about the husband/wife relationship. But it doesn't say that and really doesn't even make sense that it is. When Paul talks about that relationship and wives submitting to their own husbands, he makes it clear in the context around it. ie.....
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:22 Women, submit yourselves unto your own men, as unto the Lord.
1 Corinth 11 is more like the appeal to creation as he does in Timothy which is not about husband/wife.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Read these two posts and maybe then you will see what I am talking about and why. #247 and 248.
Not that I think, I know or understand it all but I think I have a better understanding than I did before. That's thanks to @Butch who got me to look at more of what Tertullian said. He also said that the 'angelos' must be actual angels because of the article 'the' and not having any other description that identifies them as men.
Luk 7:24 And the messengers of John having gone away, he began to say .......

 

[About the Son of God]

Nope. Neither is Paul talking about women seducers. He never says the women were uncovering to seduce or tempt to anyone.

He never said the women were uncovering to call attention to themselves. He never says that was their intent. Where do you get that statement from?

Um, in that version of the post, I said it was an observation of what people have done in church, as in today.
So, you ought not be trying to make me say it was a quote of Paul.

I'm not sure how you got a version of my post which was deleted nearly immediately after posting, but provably it was gone for nearly an hour before you posted. (5:38P.M timestamp for me vs. 6:24P.M. timestamp for you)

But if you want a biblical basis... then, OK...

The idea of problems, like fornication in church, comes from the context of 1Corinthians; Start waay back in 1Corinthians 9:25 where Paul talks about a man and a head covering, eg: striving for a crown; and saying the man should be 'temperate in all things'; And then Paul goes on to talk about lusts, 1Corinthians 10:6, and says "we", which I think includes pastors and congregation both (but it could be just pastors); And then he specifically talks about idolatry 10:7, and "fornication", 1Corinthians 10:8, so the particular issues Paul is outlining clearly include when Priests (pastors) of the old testament brought in women to the very assembly of Israel (the camp/temple/tent area) and began having sexual relations with them; eg: Numbers 25:6-8 and the fornication Paul talks about is again alluded to when he speaks about the ritual that happened at the Golden Calf, where some of the people "sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to mock" ( Exodus 32:6-7, 1Corinthians 10:7-8, back to Exodus 32:28 ) [ Idolatry + Fornication happened. ]

So Paul is COMPARING the old testament worship, to what Christians in Corinth are faced with by specifically alluding to fornication and idol worship which happened in the old testament including sexual religious rites; For that's the 'example' Paul is mentions in 1Corinthians 10:8 which he then says are the temptations that face the Corinthians, eg: the "You" of 1Corinthians 10:13. So the people in Corinth, are facing problems including lusts.

In the transitional sentence, 1Corinthians 10:13, Paul says that God will provide a way for you [ eg: both pastors and congregation ] to escape "temptation" that is "common" to man. So -- Paul is not talking about temptations which the Israelites had, and Corinthians DON'T have, rather he is talking about the temptations they share in common.

And It is in exactly that context, that Paul begins to talk about the Lord's supper celebrated by the Corinthians, and the Christian Church, where "eating and drinking" happen, but hopefully only done as commanded by the Lord; 1Corinthians 10:16, and Paul continues to compares that AGAIN to the OT, eg: 1Corinthians 10:18 -- and then immediately (again, repetition) follows it up with talk of Idols 1Corinthians 10:19, which is always about events happening in churches/temples as latria/worship....

Then.... as if a light switch is flicked !?! ( Sudden unexpect change! )

Paul suddenly starts talking about about what men and women do and don't have on the head, and the length of hair, and a thing found on the """head""" of ?the? woman, but not maybe not "every" man? ( 1Corinthians 11:3-16 ) ( The KJV does not say every woman has a man as a head; but "the" woman does. )

So 'a' or 'the' or 'some' woman has something on 'her' head (which head I'm not sure), much like the crown of 1Corinthians 9:25 goes on someone's head, but which only a winner of the race would be allowed to put on their head by an angel at the end of their life, but not every woman has a head like that.....

But, I digress ... so -- back to Paul's main subject -- as if the little detour about hair and crowns and heads never happened, Paul then returns to the same theme as before about heresies, and divisions and eating and drinking unworthily in the Lords house, eg: like the eating like they did at the Golden Calf.

So, Given the surrounding context both before and after that passage; it's pretty strange that a mere optional discipline would be what he is talking about with respect to hair; It really looks to me to be at least a disciplinary action meant to stop heresy, sexual sin, and/or false swearing. ( 1Corinthians 11:29 even mentions damnation and later dumb idols which the Gentiles once followed are brought up yet AGAIN...by the time we get to 1Corinthians 12:2 ).

So, in my reading of the bible, I notice pretty clearly that Paul appears to be obsessed with one particular theme and subject, that of Idols and Worship and 'fornication' with True God vs. False God comparisons all over the place, all the way from 1Corinthians 9:25 to 1Corinthians 12:2 -- with a mysterious detour about hair and dominion hats in middle.

So, yeah -- I have pretty good reason to think that Paul is talking about common temptations that include lust with women who are doing things to draw attention to themselves, although I did remove the sentence when I realized it might be taken as insensitive. Lust might not be the only thing Paul has on his mind, but it is certainly part of the mileau of that passage.

So, that's where I got the idea from. Are we clear yet?

Paul is talking in ways which are meant to concern the offensive social habits of Gentiles, Jews, and just about *everybody* including the Church of God. ( 1Corinthians 10:32 ).

People still offend other people today in church by what they wear.... that's part of the reason why there's denominations. Pretty cool episcopalian ??linen?? hat, huh?.

 

[About the Son of God]

I, until two days ago, believed it was talking about the husband/wife relationship. But it doesn't say that and really doesn't even make sense that it is. When Paul talks about that relationship and wives submitting to their own husbands, he makes it clear in the context around it. ie.....
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:22 Women, submit yourselves unto your own men, as unto the Lord.
1 Corinth 11 is more like the appeal to creation as he does in Timothy which is not about husband/wife.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

But Deborah, Creation is about husband and wife ??? That's part of God's Creation, to make Man and Wife. eg: AKA now, as a new creation God makes: Christ and his covnenant "wife", AKA "the" Church ; a 'married/covenanted' woman.

Read these two posts and maybe then you will see what I am talking about and why. #247 and 248.

I'm afraid I'm still lost as to your thoughts...

As far as I can tell, Dr. Gill is basically right, there is no 'veil' being mentioned at all in either 1Corinthians, or the passages he/I cited... and there's no direct evidence that I can see of what kind of thing it is that's on 'her' head, except that it has to do with external substance, or dominion... and that could be a crown like a queen would wear, or linen cap, or who knows what... because there's no word that shows me how the 'dominon' is related to the woman.

Not that I think, I know or understand it all but I think I have a better understanding than I did before. That's thanks to @Butch who got me to look at more of what Tertullian said. He also said that the 'angelos' must be actual angels because of the article 'the' and not having any other description that identifies them as men.
Luk 7:24 And the messengers of John having gone away, he began to say .......

Is he being facetous ?

"The" just means whatever follows is well known, eg: not just any angels/messengers -- but specific or well known ones that the reader should already be able to identify. In Luke 7:24, it would be "John's" angels which are meant, and not the ones -- say in heaven at that time (John's messengers might be in heaven by now, but weren't when the gospel was written... I think they were men at that time.).

But, As you can see for yourself, it does say 'angelon/angel' in the Greek right where it says 'messengers' in the KJV: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/7-24.htm

 

[Deborah13]

"The" just means whatever follows is well known, eg: not just any angels/messengers -- but specific or well known ones that the reader should already be able to identify.

I think that is what @Butch was saying. Because it just says 'the angelos' and doesn't describe them in any other way then it would be understood as 'angels' the most common way the word is used.

 

[About the Son of God]

Oh, I see what you're getting at now.

The absence or presence of a definite article really doesn't always determine whether a translator translates angels or not.
Take for instance, 1Corinthians 4:9, there is no definite article. The word angel is in the dative, but without a definite article.

Now consider the obvious; messages about what happened to the apostles, was in fact carried to the world by human messengers. Yet it still says "angels" although men also carried the messages to the world.

So, although I agree -- that when it is not obvious that a man is a messenger, spirits called angels are usually understood; but that doesn't guarantee that presence or absence of the definite article will always correctly predict when spiritual angels are definitely meant.

I would tend to agree with Butch as a statistic, but not in an absolute sense. A copyist might add 'the' or drop it accidentally fairly easily, depending on how they interpreted the text; etc. And we don't have a copy of whatever it is that caused Paul to reply in the first place (The reply is scripture, but not the original complaints), so I'm not so sure that what was obvious to Paul is obvious to us or to those who copied the text; because none of us heard the original complaints that Paul did.

We're missing half the conversation and simply can not cross check it for additional information.

I can imagine that Paul might not have thought that saying who the messengers were was at all necessary, if the messengers themselves were the target of the message, and knew who they were -- or if they were people that Paul didn't want to name lest he put them at risk of arrest by authorities who might also have them killed. Or who knows what else... My mind is still open to possibilities.

When evangelists act as the mouthpiece of God, it doesn't always matter if it's spiritual angels or men as angels who are carrying out the task of spreading the message.

I would be risking a mistake, if I assumed 1Corinthians 11:10 absolutely could not be talking about angelic creatures -- but I don't see why people might not also be involved in the task as messengers. ( eg: through the angels... I speak with angelic tongues... )

 

[About the Son of God]

There is another reason why the woman should be covered. When coming before God one should not present their glory in the presence of God and His glory.

Sorry, I'm so slow in coming to the conversation Butch.
I'm not sure exactly what to say, I think I know what you mean -- but ... well ... words are strange things, sometimes....

Revelation 4:10-11.
The twenty four elders fall down ... and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory...

Paul says that the man should not be covered because he is the Glory of God. So we are not to cover the Glory of God.

OK.
But both man and woman were made in the image of God.

So, If the woman is not the Glory of God, but the man is -- that implies something is still wrong with the woman. Adam was made from mud, Eve from Adam. The image of God is as clear as mud, if we're not careful.

I'm thinking that: The Glory of the Christ is because is he the very image (ikon) of the Father. But it's unclear how, say, an unmarried man is the image of a Father -- and Jesus remedied this by marrying via. a covenent (not sexually); Therefore, Jesus perfected the image of being a Father, by having adopted children who follow him.

These types of arguments, are very subtle -- and Paul appears to be dealing with subtle arguments in 1Corinthians 11.

However, the woman is the glory of man, whose hair is given to her as her glory. So, when the woman comes before God uncovered she presents both her own and the man's glory in the presence of God's glory.

So, then if she is not covered -- maybe someone will have thrown her down before the throne? .... hmm.... sounds, dangerously interesting, especially since a 'throne' in heaven is always an .... angel...

I don't know about anyone else but I know I don't want to glory in myself in the presence of God.

Gotcha. Yeah -- I agree with you there.
To God be the Glory, Amen!
( May the Lord deal with all the fiesty hair-em and not me, it's all yours Lord, I humbly pray. )

One has to understand what was happening in Corinth to properly regard head coverings for women. Certain cultist women were coming to the faith from Delphi. They had their heads shaved according to the rules of that cult. The Apostle Paul taught that these women had to have their heads covered since the were bald until their hair grew to an approved length. (longer than a mans). After that, long hair on a woman is the rule, no more head covering is necessary....Probably Deborah13 can tell you about the Oracle of Delphi.

Chopper -- this makes a lot of sense; Including the idea of Angels/messengers/and oracles -- but I'm not exactly sure where you got the idea that cultist women were coming from Delphi. Do you have any online links to an early christian writer who said this was the case, or a biblical quote of some kind...?

 

[Chopper]

Sorry, I'm so slow in coming to the conversation Butch.
I'm not sure exactly what to say, I think I know what you mean -- but ... well ... words are strange things, sometimes....

Revelation 4:10-11.
The twenty four elders fall down ... and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory...



OK.
But both man and woman were made in the image of God.

So, If the woman is not the Glory of God, but the man is -- that implies something is still wrong with the woman. Adam was made from mud, Eve from Adam. The image of God is as clear as mud, if we're not careful.

I'm thinking that: The Glory of the Christ is because is he the very image (ikon) of the Father. But it's unclear how, say, an unmarried man is the image of a Father -- and Jesus remedied this by marrying via. a covenent (not sexually); Therefore, Jesus perfected the image of being a Father, by having adopted children who follow him.

These types of arguments, are very subtle -- and Paul appears to be dealing with subtle arguments in 1Corinthians 11.



So, then if she is not covered -- maybe someone will have thrown her down before the throne? .... hmm.... sounds, dangerously interesting, especially since a 'throne' in heaven is always an .... angel...



Gotcha. Yeah -- I agree with you there.
To God be the Glory, Amen!
( May the Lord deal with all the fiesty hair-em and not me, it's all yours Lord, I humbly pray. )



Chopper -- this makes a lot of sense; Including the idea of Angels/messengers/and oracles -- but I'm not exactly sure where you got the idea that cultist women were coming from Delphi. Do you have any online links to an early christian writer who said this was the case, or a biblical quote of some kind...?

To my knowledge my old friend, there is not Scripture that mentions Delphi. If you Google "Oracle of Delphi" You will find historical information. The location of Delphi is as followed.
Origins of the Oracle
The 8th century reformulation of the Oracle at Delphi as a shrine to Apollo seems associated with the rise in importance of the city of Corinth and the importance of sites in the Corinthian Gulf.[8]....This is a web site that you can go to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia#Origins_of_the_Oracle. Hope this helps.

 

[Malaika]

I found this interesting reba

"My absolute selling point from the book was this: by covering “the glory of man” (aka the woman) and leaving uncovered “the glory of God” (aka the man), we are allowing God alone to receive glory. When Isaiah appeared before the Lord, even the angels covered their feet and eyes while admonishing Isaiah to ‘not look at them, but the Lord.’ Covering causes our hearts (and the angels) to be focused on God."

http://superradchristianwriterchick.com/christian-women-want-wear-head-coverings/

 

[Deborah13]

I found this interesting reba

http://superradchristianwriterchick.com/christian-women-want-wear-head-coverings/

"My absolute selling point from the book was this: by covering “the glory of man” (aka the woman) and leaving uncovered “the glory of God” (aka the man), we are allowing God alone to receive glory. When Isaiah appeared before the Lord, even the angels covered their feet and eyes while admonishing Isaiah to ‘not look at them, but the Lord.’ Covering causes our hearts (and the angels) to be focused on God."
The above quote makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for posting it.

This one does not....
".....When I drilled down deeper into the website I found that the designs were all created by professional designers with an eye for fashion.....
My daughter and I drooled over the stunning images. I wouldn’t have to answer the “should I require my girls to wear a head covering” question. My daughter wanted to wear a head covering if it looked like that! (She also LOVES the idea of giving God total glory, too! Win/Win)"
http://superradchristianwriterchick.com/christian-women-want-wear-head-coverings/

 

[Malaika]

"My absolute selling point from the book was this: by covering “the glory of man” (aka the woman) and leaving uncovered “the glory of God” (aka the man), we are allowing God alone to receive glory. When Isaiah appeared before the Lord, even the angels covered their feet and eyes while admonishing Isaiah to ‘not look at them, but the Lord.’ Covering causes our hearts (and the angels) to be focused on God."
The above quote makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for posting it.

This one does not....
".....When I drilled down deeper into the website I found that the designs were all created by professional designers with an eye for fashion.....
My daughter and I drooled over the stunning images. I wouldn’t have to answer the “should I require my girls to wear a head covering” question. My daughter wanted to wear a head covering if it looked like that! (She also LOVES the idea of giving God total glory, too! Win/Win)"
http://superradchristianwriterchick.com/christian-women-want-wear-head-coverings/

Huh? I don't get what you're trying to say..lol

I think you're saying you agree with the first part about the covering but not the second part about the coverings being designed by fashion designers? She was referring to this website that makes modest, fashionable clothing and headwraps for women: modli.co

 

[Deborah13]

Huh? I don't get what you're trying to say..lol

I think you're saying you agree with the first part about the covering but not the second part about the coverings being designed by fashion designers? She was referring to this website that makes modest, fashionable clothing and headwraps for women: modli.co

Just my opinion, nothing important for you to consider. More than anything, I just want to tell you I appreciate the insight of the Isaiah scripture.

 

[lovestodance]

Stumbled on this thread and find it fascinating. What is especially fascinating is that no one has considered it in the context of what Paul has been writing to the church at Corinth for the previous ten chapters. What was the primary, overwhelming problem that was messing up the Corinthian church? You find it right at the beginning, in chapter 1: contentions, glorying in men, glorying in the teachings of different leaders, instead of glorying only in Christ. His reply to that?
verse 27 - “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, - now focus in on this - verse 29 - "that no flesh should glory in His presence.” That no flesh should glory in His presence.
That is a basic premise of this letter, and the other part of this basic premise comes immediately after - verse 30:
“But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption—
:31 that, as it is written, "HE WHO GLORIES, LET HIM GLORY IN THE LORD.”

In chapter 3, writing about their carnality and their carnal ideas about Christian service, he tells them that there will be a reward or a loss at the Judgement Seat of Christ, then he reminds them in verse 18 not to deceive themselves, and he says in verse 21; "Therefore let no man glory or boast in men." We are starting to see a consistent theme here. Admonishing them for glorying in men, and in the things of men.

In chapter 5, he talks to them about their sexual immorality, their fornication and laxity in marriage. He says they were worse than the pagans because they were "puffed up and did not rather mourn" over it, and in verse 6 he tells them "Your glorying is not good." Glorying in the things of the flesh, not in the things of Christ.

In chapter 10 and verse 31 he sums all these ideas up: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

Then comes chapter 11, and his instructions on headship, and head coverings. Verse 31 in chapter 10 is the lead in and sets the stage for chapter 11. So in contrast to what most of this thread has been about, it looks to me that this passage in chapter 11 has nothing to do with a woman's submission to any man, instead it has everything to do with who the church is glorifying. Or not glorifying, which is the whole problem, and the point of these 16 verses in chapter 11.

Compare 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 with Ephesians 5:21-33, which is about submission, and you will notice that they have virtually nothing in common. Nothing. If it was about submission, there would probably be at least a few things in common, but they are not there. Which tells us (1) that headship is not the same thing as submission, and (2) that 1st Corinthians 11:1-16 is not about a woman's submission to her husband or any other man.

It looks to me like chapter 11 is a summing of what the church should be glorying in, which is Christ, and His headship over the church.
Which means that the passage has little or nothing to do with male/female relationships, or husband/wife submissive relationships, instead it has everything to do with manifesting the glory of Christ in His church, His headship over His church, and covering over the glory of man. (Which is woman)
When the woman covers her head, she is covering over the glory of man, that within the congregation (Which is where I take this to apply) only the glory of Christ should be displayed. The glory of man is covered. The size or shape of the covering is irrelevant, it is making a symbolic statement that the angels understand, because they saw Satan glorifying himself against God, and men down through the ages glorifying man instead of God, and they get it.

Also, this means that the passage is non-cultural, but is just as relevant today as it was when Paul wrote it.

Something else, if you read the passage with the presupposition that it is dealing with male/female relationships, there are several disconnects in the flow and continuity of thought. There are areas which become incomprehensible when approached from this viewpoint. And Paul is not irrational and doesn't do disconnects, Romans proves that, he is always a logical thinker. Disconnects are not his style.

But if approached from the presupposition that this is Paul gathering up what it means to glorify Christ in the midst of His church, summing up what he has chided them about previously, the previous chapters were setting the stage so to speak, and the need to relegate the glory of man to being hidden, which was something he first began to deal with in the beginning of this letter, then the passage hangs together very well, and the obscure verses and references become logical and comprehensible.

 

[Malaika]

lovestodance

Love your breakdown!

And I thought another application of this as far as husband/wife headship goes, is that ultimately we all should be glorifying and submitting to God, so if He asks us to do something that may seem sexist, it isn't us "submitting" to man's will, but God's. In all things God should be glorified.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Deborah13]

Phew....this isn't the first discussion we have had on this subject and I never felt that we had gotten very far. This time I did finally realize that this scripture was not talking about husbands/wives at all, that just didn't make sense. Neither did it make sense that all women are under the authority of all men.
But understanding the 'glory' going only to Christ explains much of the sense of it. However, I don't think it clears up the whole of it.

 

[lovestodance]

Thank you, you are very gracious. What is it that strikes you as still being obscure? Not that I have all the answers, but it's fun to work at it.

 

[Obadiah]

Isn't it great when we find truths in scripture that show us some of those long held traditions really aren't all they're cracked up to be afterall?

 

[Butch5]

@Butch as for v10, I will quote Dr. Gill's commentary because I found his use of the Hebrew compared to the Greek LXX, enlightening.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head......
"The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word רדיד, which signifies a woman's veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from רדה, to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from רדד, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman's veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word εξουσια more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:"
Dr Gill's explanation fits extremely well with what Tertullian was saying about the virgins being covered outside the church and uncovering in the assembly.
"Why do you denude before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in public than in the church?"
So what was going on in Corinth that was not going on in the other churches? I believe the women, especially virgins, were keeping their heads covered outside the church and uncovering in the assembly. Paul appeals to order of all and to nature as to the difference between male and female. Men did not cover their heads outside the church for modesty's sake but women did. Shouldn't a women be as modest if not more so inside the assembly as outside the assembly.
Why did men not cover their heads outside or inside the assembly according to Paul, because of the order of creation. We know this because Paul says that man was created first and she was created for him. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
I agree with you that all creation was created through Christ. The man was created through Christ, that is his origin. Woman was created from man, that is her origin.
Paul is quick to reenforce his statements in other scripture, the 'in Christ' there is no male or female.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

You are also correct in saying that it is the woman who has the power over the decision when to wear a headcovering or not, per this scripture that is speaking about ALL women, not just married women.
So then the whole premise now comes down to the 'angelos'. Who were/are the 'angelos'?

Hi Deb,

My appeal to Tertullian was for the historical content. As I said, his opinions are not as important as the historical evidence he gives. Tertullian's issue was about virgins. I don't know that Paul was addressing just virgins. Regarding the angels, I know some believe Paul is referring to fallen angels, 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men,' I don't think that is what Paul is referring to. We know from what he said to the Ephesians that he understood the church to be a visual example to the angelic powers and principalities in Heaven.

 

[Butch5]

Ephesians 5:21 -- submit to one another.

Everyone is in submission to 'another'; It is not just said, wives to the husbands -- but also husbands love the wives as Christ gave himself up for her. And, note carefully, the husband is not master over his own body, but the wife; 1Corinthians 7:4.
There may be different competencies, or rights, over the others body at different times -- but no one escapes serving the other upon request.

Slow down Butch, in the rapid fire exchange I think you're getting mixed up. ( Hen pecked ? )

I agree with you that the principalities and powers are often understood as angels; and I notice that there have been comments concerning whether fallen angels are meant ( Which would bring up passages like Genesis 6:2 ); I'm of the opinion that such passages can also be read as if they meant the authorities that God set upon the earth -- which would be pastors, or governors, or state officials. They do not 'necessarily' mean spiritual angels *alone*. The Gospel itself is called Eu-Angelon (Good Angel, or well message - to speak well / evangelize ). It's where we get the word "evangelization" from in English, but generally humans and not angels are the one who do evangelization. The problem I'm alluding to in Genesis 6:2, and the reason for the fall of those angels, is quite simple -- unmarried, beautiful women who they were able to 'see' all too often.

Now, back to the church setting and Paul:
Pastors are sometimes seduced by women who call attention to themselves. That practical problem existed in Christian churches all the way back to the time of Christ, and still happens today. Paul, remember, was not married -- and wanted to stay single in order to devote his whole life to Christ without worrying about pleasing a wife -- but as a figure of importance in the church, Paul would also have been someone that certain women would have found an irresistible target for making themselves more powerful. The same issue undoubtedly plagued other Pastor's whom Paul consecrated to rule over churches... for he wanted all men to be like himself, unencumbered.

So, I'm not entirely convinced that Paul is citing the created order (alone) when he speaks of principalities, and powers.
He does Cite the created order when he starts talking about Adam and Eve, and it's relationship to salvation;
So, Although Angels do exist, and I'm not ruling out your interpretation ... I think Paul had more immediate problems; such as people becoming obsessed (posessed?) by the desire to prophecy in Church out of turn, and the like. A real Pentecostal melee...

So, I wonder in a practical sense why you think he was concerned about the angels in the first place, unless it had to do with a union of heaven and earth's powers inside the church.

Hi,

As I said to Deb, i'm not big on the fallen angels and woman idea. Gen 6 speaks of the sons of God and the daughters of men. People interpret this as angels, I'm not sure it is. The word angel if from the Greek angelos it just means a messenger. Whether that messenger is heavenly or human is determined by other factors. In the Ephesians passage he writes of powers and principalities in heavenly places.

The reason I think Paul is referring to angels in Heaven is because it's the only thing that seems to fit. He says these powers and principalities are in the heavenlies. If we say this is referring to humans I would submit that the heavenlies would exclude anyone outside of the church. If we are left with the church it doesn't seem to make sense to say that God manifold wisdom is being made known to the church through the church. So, it seems to me this can only mean those being in the heavenlies that are not human.