Paul and Women

[Butch5]

the reason to wear the veil is simple obedience.
the results of not wearing the veil is disobedience.
since the western world doesn't obey Scripture anyway, who's going to notice !?
that goes for the rest of the world also. who's going to notice !?

only in the few places where Scripture is obeyed, will anyone notice if someone disobeys.

A big amen there Jeff.

 

[Butch5]

You said,
Can you think of any other visible sign that would substitute ?

Well yes! A diamond ring that's big enough to be seen by the angels. :halo

Hi Deb,

The problem with the ting is that men wear that too. If he is to be unveiled he'd have to remove the ring. However, shy substitute anything, why not just do as the apostle states?

 

[Butch5]

In the early church there was no question about women being veiled. However a question did arise about virgins and whether they should be veiled. Tertullian wrote on this subject his work "The Veiling of Virgins." He concludes that since the apostle wrote the letter to the Corinthians, look at what they did. The Corinthians veiled their virgins, thus all women were veiled.

Tertullian- The Veiling of Virgins
The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman—why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not—it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis man: “She shall be called,” says he, “woman, because she hath been taken from her own man.” Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like manner as Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence apply with sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, “ Every woman.” What is “every,” but of every class, of every order, of every condition, of every dignity, of every age?—if, (as is the case), “every” means total and entire, and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin is withal a part of the woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the man, he says “every.” Behold two diverse names, Man and woman—“every one” in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring. Therefore, if the fact that it is said “every man” makes it plain that the name of man is common even to him who is not yet a man, a stripling male; (if), moreover, since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who among men is a virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it is not consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman-virgin is similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised too in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a stripling a man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a woman, let the stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let identity of virginity, share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man,” without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to “every woman? ””If any,” he says, “is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God.” He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming “every woman,” whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her). So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.


Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[jasonc]

In the early church there was no question about women being veiled. However a question did arise about virgins and whether they should be veiled. Tertullian wrote on this subject his work "The Veiling of Virgins." He concludes that since the apostle wrote the letter to the Corinthians, look at what they did. The Corinthians veiled their virgins, thus all women were veiled.

Tertullian- The Veiling of Virgins
The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman—why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not—it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis man: “She shall be called,” says he, “woman, because she hath been taken from her own man.” Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like manner as Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence apply with sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, “ Every woman.” What is “every,” but of every class, of every order, of every condition, of every dignity, of every age?—if, (as is the case), “every” means total and entire, and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin is withal a part of the woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the man, he says “every.” Behold two diverse names, Man and woman—“every one” in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring. Therefore, if the fact that it is said “every man” makes it plain that the name of man is common even to him who is not yet a man, a stripling male; (if), moreover, since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who among men is a virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it is not consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman-virgin is similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised too in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a stripling a man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a woman, let the stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let identity of virginity, share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man,” without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to “every woman? ””If any,” he says, “is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God.” He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming “every woman,” whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her). So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.


Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

so you wouldn't mind wearing a burqua? that is what that looks like. the burgua has a veil to it. not as large as the ones you might think. the haredem practice that. kinda hard to drive with those. so they don't in islam if women can drive. in haradi Judaism they look like muslims.

 

[Butch5]

so you wouldn't mind wearing a burqua? that is what that looks like. the burgua has a veil to it. not as large as the ones you might think. the haredem practice that. kinda hard to drive with those. so they don't in islam if women can drive. in haradi Judaism they look like muslims.

Apparently in Tertullian's day the veils were different in different areas. The point is that they were veiled. However, Paul said this is 'when you come together' so it would be during a church service not all the time.

 

[jasonc]

Apparently in Tertullian's day the veils were different in different areas. The point is that they were veiled. However, Paul said this is 'when you come together' so it would be during a church service not all the time.

what would be the point of it in church and I know that in jewry it was all the time? islam copycatted that.in fact he did say that it was all the time. it would make no sense just to do it church only. how would a man know outside?

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

watchman nee is one of the only, not the only one, but one of the only teachers out of more than i count or even remember , who taught well Scripturally about the topic 'headship' and the fuller topic 'authority' .
he got directly and fully to the point, from God's Plan, from Scripture,
and not the letter of the law, which kills,
but the spirit of the law of life in Christ Jesus, which is still rarely heard or understood anywhere,
and is not grasped when "everyone does what is right in their own sight" at all (thus in the world and in the churches it is virtually or practically unknown. ('right ruling' and rightly dividing the Word, let alone Hearing Yhwh in Union in Yeshua).)

like "he is a Jew who is one inwardly, circumcised of heart" , and Rahab was called Righteous by Yhwh and Yhwh's people, and so on --- not as men see outwardly, and yet also never contrary to any of Yhwh's Instructions/Commandments/Word.

Perhaps, It's awkward because we have a lot of different backrounds here. (at least I hope that's the main reason), and Yhwh knows what each of us has been through, and will be going through. And Yhwh sets up everything to work for good to those of us who love God, who are called according to His Purpose.)

 

[Deborah13]

In the early church there was no question about women being veiled. However a question did arise about virgins and whether they should be veiled. Tertullian wrote on this subject his work "The Veiling of Virgins." He concludes that since the apostle wrote the letter to the Corinthians, look at what they did. The Corinthians veiled their virgins, thus all women were veiled.

Tertullian- The Veiling of Virgins
The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman—why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not—it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis man: “She shall be called,” says he, “woman, because she hath been taken from her own man.” Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like manner as Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence apply with sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, “ Every woman.” What is “every,” but of every class, of every order, of every condition, of every dignity, of every age?—if, (as is the case), “every” means total and entire, and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin is withal a part of the woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the man, he says “every.” Behold two diverse names, Man and woman—“every one” in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring. Therefore, if the fact that it is said “every man” makes it plain that the name of man is common even to him who is not yet a man, a stripling male; (if), moreover, since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who among men is a virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it is not consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman-virgin is similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised too in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a stripling a man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a woman, let the stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let identity of virginity, share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man,” without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to “every woman? ””If any,” he says, “is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God.” He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming “every woman,” whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her). So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.


Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I'm not overly impressed by Tertullian for various reasons. Here are a few.

In De Fuga, he taught that widow could not remarry. That is clearly against the teachings of Paul.
In De Monogamin, he taught that Christians were not allowed to flee persecution but to be martyred.
He said that martyrdom was a second baptism that took away sins comment after one's first baptism.

"Tertullian is sometimes criticized for being misogynistic, on the basis of the contents of his 'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx): "Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

I wonder if he removed his turban in church? Surely he did.

 

[Deborah13]

Oh so now you want to want to send a message of showy displays as well :biggrin

I don't see any of these reasons as solid really. Also if the message is about a symbolic head ( noggin ) covering then I'm sure the inventive woman could come up with something suitable. Oh if the husband forbids it then that;s another can of worms and simply means he doesn't agree with or accept the passage or worse, he does accept it and is being disobedient.

Which verse ?

Some men and pastors think the verse about the vail is talking about wearing her hair long. It's not.

A vail, is a vail. And we all know what eastern women wear for vails.
You can't just "come up with something".
Paul was dealing with people who were coming out of pagan religions. Paul was not a legalistic, he had logical reasons for the things he said. Paul did not look down on woman, for his day he was amazingly modern in his views of woman, especially seeing woman weren't allowed to do anything in the synagogues that he came from.
So without understanding the clause about the angels, I personally don't think we can get to the bottom of it.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

okay.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/neeonheadcovering.htm

 

[Deborah13]

okay.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/neeonheadcovering.htm

Actually I think this is a good article.

 

[agua.]

Some men and pastors think the verse about the vail is talking about wearing her hair long. It's not.

Oh ok I get ya. So short hair is being uncovered and a disgrace so the may as well be shaved ? Interesting.

A vail, is a vail. And we all know what eastern women wear for vails.
You can't just "come up with something".

Like a wedding ring ? :D

If the message is covering the head ( noggin ) so that you don't disgrace your head ( husband ) and to show the Angels that you understand and accept the created order ( if this is the message ) then I think you may have some liberty with the type of head covering. A hat , a scarf, a turtle shell ( :D )

Paul was dealing with people who were coming out of pagan religions. Paul was not a legalistic, he had logical reasons for the things he said. Paul did not look down on woman, for his day he was amazingly modern in his views of woman, especially seeing woman weren't allowed to do anything in the synagogues that he came from.

Yes I agree but I don't see how a directive to cover the head is legalistic or insulting to women. Do you think Baptism is legalistic or taking Communion ? I think the problem is that many people don't like the idea because it seems derogatory to women.

So without understanding the clause about the angels, I personally don't think we can get to the bottom of it.

I think the clause about the angels becomes clear imo when we look at the way Paul unfolds the issue. He starts with headship. then moves on to explain why the woman should wear the vail, then ends with the created order and the Angels clause.

1Co 11:7-10 KJV 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.

I don't think we can dispute that "for this cause" refers to the created order do you think ? If this is the case then it follows that authority and headship is the issue which applies to Angels in this passage. ( oh do I gotta do imo here :D )

 

[Butch5]

I'm not overly impressed by Tertullian for various reasons. Here are a few.

In De Fuga, he taught that widow could not remarry. That is clearly against the teachings of Paul.
In De Monogamin, he taught that Christians were not allowed to flee persecution but to be martyred.
He said that martyrdom was a second baptism that took away sins comment after one's first baptism.

"Tertullian is sometimes criticized for being misogynistic, on the basis of the contents of his 'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx): "Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

I wonder if he removed his turban in church? Surely he did.

Deb,

My point was not his opinion. He recorded what was actually being practiced by the Churches that were founded by the apostles. His conclusion was to look to the Corinthians to whom Paul had addressed the letter and see how they understood what he said. Then he relates that the Corinthians veiled their virgins. There was no issue about married women, they veiled, the question only concerned virgins.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not overly impressed by Tertullian for various reasons. Here are a few.

In De Fuga, he taught that widow could not remarry. That is clearly against the teachings of Paul.
In De Monogamin, he taught that Christians were not allowed to flee persecution but to be martyred.
He said that martyrdom was a second baptism that took away sins comment after one's first baptism.

"Tertullian is sometimes criticized for being misogynistic, on the basis of the contents of his 'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx): "Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

I wonder if he removed his turban in church? Surely he did.

Wiki may not be the best place to find out what Tertullian believed. Like the Scripture the early Christians are often taken out of context because what they believed is not popular today

 

[Butch5]

what would be the point of it in church and I know that in jewry it was all the time? islam copycatted that.in fact he did say that it was all the time. it would make no sense just to do it church only. how would a man know outside?

Because in the Church is where Christians gathered together to come before God as a unit.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It is true that we do not have the autographs; but it is NOT true that they can not be reconstructed to a 99.999% accuracy,

99.999% accuracy? Where did you get this number?

Using a critical apparatus, it once was possible to look at a variance (not the same as an error) in the Scriptures and ascertain with a good deal of certainty that the original text was this, not that. However with the recent discoveries of more texts, (now over 6000+ according to Gary Habermas. presently professor at Liberty University) there is so much detail available that scholars are able to pinpoint exactly when and where the variants began, and then trace them through their "families". The updated numbers were on a Youtube video, but is now 404. However the bulk of the lecture is in written form HERE but you will need to take the 4500 he gives and make them larger.

We don't have any manuscripts earlier than the 2nd Century, and you're overstating the case from manuscripts. There is more to textual criticism then just looking at variance in the manuscripts. Which as I presented earlier, there is a great deal of variance with the passage in question, from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Cool ! Yes I agree By Grace the number of manuscripts we have which have such a high percentage of agreement ( considering the different copiers ) sorta rules out #2 imo.

If you can, tell me when the first manuscript containing 1 Corinthians 14 was found, and then provide the number of copies from the first 4 centuries.

You'll find that there are hardly any, and also you will find that there is variance concerning the passage in question. You realize that the earliest manuscripts we have are from the 2nd century and none of those are of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The earliest I know of is is Papyrus 123 which is an almost useless manuscript as it does not represent any major depiction of the text.

The manuscripts from very early on are not as common as By Grace has depicted, and since he did not actually post specifics regarding 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 I don't see how that refutes #2.

Basically one has to take on faith that someone did their homework and then told everyone, "it's 99.999% accurate," but when you actually look into the manuscripts you realize that there is more to it than just comparing manuscripts. There are some easier interpolations to spot, like 1 John 5:7b and then there are some that require some textual criticism such as this passage.

Some people seem to have an aversion to doing this, but you have to recognize that this is 100% necessary to do in order to come up with a coherent and accurate translation. There are many conflicting manuscripts and someone has to determine which one does belong and which one doesn't, and even then they can't make all the decisions for you and just include some questionable sections. For example, scholars are just about certain that John 7:53-8:11 is an interpolation and yet translations include this despite giving a warning of such.

It doesn't do any good to speak generally about the high percentage of agreement among the manuscripts as it is different with each text. Simply put, I don't think By Grace's comments in any way refute my argument.

 

[Deborah13]

Wiki may not be the best place to find out what Tertullian believed. Like the Scripture the early Christians are often taken out of context because what they believed is not popular today

I only used a wiki quote taken from his own writings that gave a reference to that particular writing. I hardly think a quote from his own works is an opinion but an invitation to read from that work in context.
I have read them on other sites of the teachings of early fathers of the church.
One can do their own research if they know where to look. He was a prolific writer.
He converted to Montanism early on which was rejected by the church. But this thread is not about Tertullian so I will let it rest.

 

[Deborah13]

Oh ok I get ya. So short hair is being uncovered and a disgrace so the may as well be shaved ? Interesting.



Like a wedding ring ? :biggrin

If the message is covering the head ( noggin ) so that you don't disgrace your head ( husband ) and to show the Angels that you understand and accept the created order ( if this is the message ) then I think you may have some liberty with the type of head covering. A hat , a scarf, a turtle shell ( :biggrin )



Yes I agree but I don't see how a directive to cover the head is legalistic or insulting to women. Do you think Baptism is legalistic or taking Communion ? I think the problem is that many people don't like the idea because it seems derogatory to women.



I think the clause about the angels becomes clear imo when we look at the way Paul unfolds the issue. He starts with headship. then moves on to explain why the woman should wear the vail, then ends with the created order and the Angels clause.

1Co 11:7-10 KJV 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.

I don't think we can dispute that "for this cause" refers to the created order do you think ? If this is the case then it follows that authority and headship is the issue which applies to Angels in this passage. ( oh do I gotta do imo here :biggrin )

I agree the 'cause is to show headship' that is not an issue.
'Because' of the angels' is the issue.
So are you saying that women are to wear head coverings to remind angels that they (the angels) are under God's authority?

 

[Stan1953]

Apparently in Tertullian's day the veils were different in different areas. The point is that they were veiled. However, Paul said this is 'when you come together' so it would be during a church service not all the time.

Paul is talking about actually praying in 1 Cor 11:5 (NIV), so IMO not a service as such but just the prayer part.