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

[JohnD]

My beloved wife has been a good teacher. Flawed as are we all, but the best person and woman I'll ever know. From what she teaches me about the female psyche (the insecurities that govern much of their behavior and paths they take) I would think women would be the least tolerant of the immodesty on display these past generations. I have seen how women (unaware I watched) looked at other women. The faces they made. The envy to be in the spotlight and center of attention they currently were not in.

What a dreadful waste. And for what? Attention? Money? Power? Ego boost?

One day the looks will go south and all the queen's horses and all the queen's physicians will not be able to put the queen's body back together again...

Just food for thought. Just food for thought.

 

[JohnD]

Any takers?

Well, why not?

Hint:

we are not good judges.

that's a major reason why we need the Law.

without it, we are too gullible / too prone to desensitization / too forgiving of self and judgmental of others...
...to merely determine between right and wrong / truth and untruth.

And the liberties we defend as our rights etc. we'd be embarrassed to flaunt here if not be in violation of some very well set rules here.

Think. Think this through. Pray about it. Be open to what the Holy Spirit shows you.

God does not want to ruin our fun but spare us (and him and the rest of us) much grief.

 

[reba]

Seems to me any time we put one scripture above another we get messed up.
John D balanced my posting of
Gal_5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Wiht his posting ... Galatians 6:8 (NIV84)
8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
We need to not be lopsided... not too legalistic not too liberal... Setting on a mountain top being so earthly spiritual while not feeding the kids is not good... Feeding the kids and never getting on the mountain top is not good...

Wearing a bikini is not good Wearing a burka is not good... balance...

 

[Edward]

Here, I'll start...

Look at how repressed this poor woman is!
The nerve of society making her hide who and what she is and her femininity is lost in the materials...

Dreadful!

How about this poor woman?

Hey, that's what I'm talkin' about! It's a good look, though girl #1 needs to let her hair grow out lol. I hardly wouldn't dare to tell my wife how to dress or wear her hair. I did let her know what I liked and what ways she looked good. Luckily for me it wasn't an issue because she was always respectably modest.

 

[Deborah13]

My beloved wife has been a good teacher. Flawed as are we all, but the best person and woman I'll ever know. From what she teaches me about the female psyche (the insecurities that govern much of their behavior and paths they take) I would think women would be the least tolerant of the immodesty on display these past generations. I have seen how women (unaware I watched) looked at other women. The faces they made. The envy to be in the spotlight and center of attention they currently were not in.

What a dreadful waste. And for what? Attention? Money? Power? Ego boost?

One day the looks will go south and all the queen's horses and all the queen's physicians will not be able to put the queen's body back together again...

Just food for thought. Just food for thought.

It breaks my heart to see young women and even young girls (shame on their moms) dressing so immodestly. It is sad that they should be used in such a disrespectful way (they are being used) and they can't see it.
Then they wonder later why they attract men who see them only as objects of the flesh.

 

[Kenny_ms]

I wouldn't worry about it. We all see through a glass darkly. You know the Gospel, the Good News, and you know the two commandments that Jesus gave. The Lord will show you, in your heart, what you really need to know.

That's right, he did say that, didn't he. Something to always remember when things are unclear...thanks.

 

[Deborah13]

Here, I'll start...

Look at how repressed this poor woman is!
The nerve of society making her hide who and what she is and her femininity is lost in the materials...

Dreadful!

How about this poor woman?

You really don't think that bustle in pic #2 was comfortable to sit down with or that it was designed with her pleasure in mind?

girl #1 needs to let her hair grow out

She must have very long hair in order to produce that swept up hairstyle.

 

[Malachi]

Would you please list a few of these places where Christian women practice this, that it is NOT part of the eastern culture that they live in?

Deborah,
Head coverings were standard practice in North American churches until a few decades ago. Ideally the hair should be fully covered. They are still used as you will note in the images below:
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=683&bih=423&q=Christian brethren women with head coverings&oq=Christian brethren women with head coverings&gs_l=img.12...2631.17567.0.21023.48.18.2.28.4.0.116.1881.3j15.18.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.64.img..25.23.1925.G1SNJqhxiOM

 

[JohnD]

You really don't think that bustle in pic #2 was comfortable to sit down with or that it was designed with her pleasure in mind?

She must have very long hair in order to produce that swept up hairstyle.

I have to sneeze...

ahh
ahhh
extensions!

Excuse me.

 

[handy]

Well, rather than go back all 10 pages and try to keep up with the conversation so far, I think I'll just jump right in and if I cover ground already covered, my apologies....

The basic debate about whether or not the women of today should wear a head covering often boils down to either Paul addressing a local cultural issue, or defining an eternal principle. If it were just and only just a local custom, then it need not apply today. If an eternal principle, then yes, women of today need something on their head when in church.

So, often the debate becomes an "either-or" type of debate... Either the custom was local and non-binding to all women for all time or a head covering is an eternal principle that all godly women must obey.

The problem with "either-or" debates is that rarely do these kinds of issues boil down to either one or the other.

One aspect of this debate that seems clear enough to me and probably most others here is that Paul is referencing a cultural custom (the wearing of head-coverings) to define an eternal principle (that women are to be submissive to their husbands).

That the head covering was a cultural custom there is no doubt. This remains a cultural custom in many lands to this day. A very important thing to consider is that it is part of the whole culture... in other words, it's not just Christian women who wear the head-coverings in these lands...it's all women and for that matter, most men in these cultures wear head coverings as well. I am of the firm conviction that if one lives in or visits one of these cultures, the head covering is non-negotiable.

The issue is, we live in a culture in which not only do we not wear head coverings (neither men, nor women) but the very act of wearing an head covering is considered by almost all non-Christians and many Christians to be a sign of not godly submission, but manly oppression. We cannot ignore this because this directly impacts the Church's message of the gospel in our society. Modestly... actual biblical modesty not just "not sexy" comes into play as well. The real meaning of modesty in the Bible is simply not calling attention to oneself by the way one dresses. This isn't just a matter of sexuality...it's humility. We as Christians are not to dress in such a way that we become the center of attention or in such a way that causes people to make judgments about us. What should be notable about us is our godliness, not our appearance.

All these things come into play when trying to hash out whether or not a woman should wear a head-covering.

Most importantly, we must not throw the baby out with the bath-water...if indeed head coverings can be classified as bath water. The undeniable eternal principle in this debate is that Christian women are to be submissive to their husbands and to represent to the World the Church as the Bride of Christ, submissive to His headship. The Bible is crystal clear on this, it's in the very order of creation and pointed out numerous times.

The point Paul is making is that Christian women should be an example in their communities of this eternal fact, that Christ has headship over the Church, just as a man has headship over his wife. In Paul's day, in that culture, the best example of this was a woman wearing her head-covering during worship.

I think, so far, everyone would be in agreement with me. ...but now to wade out into the more complex issue of how do we hammer these principles out in a culture in which not only does no one wear head coverings except as fashion statements (remember true modesty is the exact opposite of making fashion statements) but the traditional head-covering is no longer a sign of submissiveness, but rather suppression. It really comes down to whether or not a man decides if his wife should wear a head covering. If he does, then OK... a godly, submissive wife will wear the head covering.

But, should Christian men who live in western culture in the 21st century decide this?

I think the answer probably best lies in texts such as Mark 3:4. No, that wasn't a mistake, I am referencing "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath?" What Jesus was bucking up against traditions that had solidified in the minds of men as to how to observe the Sabbath.

Here in 21st century Western Culture, we are bucking up against traditions that solidified regarding head-coverings....and make no mistake, these are traditions... the lace doilies and the pill box hats bear absolutely no resemblance to the garments to which Paul was referring to.

First and foremost, the Church has the duty to bear witness to the Gospel and the Gospel, by definition is GOOD news. Salvation, freedom, an easy yoke and a light burden... anything that leaves the impression that the Gospel is dragging women back to 1st century chattel status is counter productive.

Now, in our communities, does a woman wearing a head-covering exemplify the Gospel... or is a wholly different message being understood?

Given that we are also called to be modest and a head-covering is counter-productive to that as well... because women wearing head-covering to church and only to church is an attention getter in our community, Steve and I have come to the conclusion that it better serves the gospel of Christ to not wear it.

Naturally it needs to be said... even though it's bound to be ignored :wink that we need to not judge another's conviction in this area. This is something that a man and his wife needs to thrash out between them and God... and should even a congregation believe that they better serve the Gospel by having the women wear head-coverings...even unmarried women...OK. But no one should adopt an "holier-than-thou" attitude on this. There are ways in which Christians who earnestly seek to live out God's commandments before the world can come to differing opinions. Since this isn't an "essential", we need to be charitable.

 

[Sinthesis]

Wearing a bikini is not good Wearing a burka is not good... balance...

Burkini?

Google it.

 

[handy]

Burkini?

Google it.

I can't even imagine how hot that would be at a sunny beach!

 

[handy]

Deborah,
Head coverings were standard practice in North American churches until a few decades ago. Ideally the hair should be fully covered. They are still used as you will note in the images below:
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=683&bih=423&q=Christian brethren women with head coverings&oq=Christian brethren women with head coverings&gs_l=img.12...2631.17567.0.21023.48.18.2.28.4.0.116.1881.3j15.18.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.64.img..25.23.1925.G1SNJqhxiOM

The thing is hats were standard wear for everybody up to a few decades ago. It wasn't until the mid-60's to early 70's that people stopped putting a hat on before going outside. We have Steve's grandfather's old fedora which he never stepped outside without wearing in our closet.

It's also important to note that even the Mennonite head covering bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Paul was referring to... so, in practice, even the Mennonite women are following a principle, rather than doing exactly what Paul exhorted the Corinthian women to do.

 

[Sinthesis]

I can't even imagine how hot that would be at a sunny beach!

Lake of fire hot?

 

[Butch5]

I quote from 11 and 10. Not sure just what you are referring to?

I was trying to figure out what you were referring to.

So in North Africa only the married women covered their heads and with turbans.

Hmm...seems to me that would include the face would it not?

It would appear so. However, as I said, Paul doesn't define what constitutes a head covering in 1 Cor.

[/quote] Well women today very often leave their hair unbond.
See it appears that there are two things going on. Culture and showing that one is a married woman who has a husband as her 'head'. She doesn't have her own head, it is hidden.
In our culture, we show that we are married women, have a husband, by wearing a wedding band and the husband does the same.
To remove the head covering in that culture, could show that one was not married, she was her own head. In our culture, it wouldn't mean that at all. Wearing a hat doesn't mean that. It would be pointless for that purpose. But wearing a wedding band does. An engagement ring is if for the same reason.[/quote]

Two things here, one is that I don't see any appeal to culture by the apostle. The other is that Tertullian was addressing the subject of vrgins and whether or not they should be veiled. His conclusion is to look to the Corinthians to whom Paul sent the letter. The Corinthians veiled their virgins. I don't think this is just a husband/wife issue as the unmarried were required to be veiled also. From the historical evidence it seems that this was the practice throughout the Christian churches. If that is the case I think it takes the culture argument out of the picture as the culture in Corinth was no doubt different than that of Carthage North Africa or Gaul or Rome, etc.

"The Acrocorinth, the acropolis of the ancient city, was heavily fortified during the Middle Ages. Nothing is left of the fabled temple to Aphrodite, but remains of the medieval fortifications, which were built on earlier foundations, may still be seen from the western side." [next to pic of the hill were the temple was]
Commentators usually assume that Corinth was an especially licentious city, a reputation it seems to have had in ancient times. Indeed, one of the Greek verbs for fornicate was korinthiazomai,a word derived from the city's name. Apparently this estimation was based on Strabo's report of 1,000 sacred prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinth, an 1886-foot hill that rises above the city to the south. Recent scholars point out, however, that the charge was more likely an Athenian slander against the pre-146 BCE city since sacred prostitution was a Middle East custom, not a Greek one. No doubt Corinth, like other large port cities, had plenty of prostitutes to service the sailors, but they were not sacred."
http://www.abrock.com/Greece-Turkey/corinth.html
http://www.theoi.com/Cult/AphroditeCult.html

The geographer Strabo, who wrote around 20 AD said about Corinth, in his work at 8.6.20.....
"The temple of Aphrodite was once so rich that it had acquired more than a thousand prostitutes, donated by both men and women to the service of the goddess. And because of them, the city used to be jam-packed and became wealthy. The ship-captains would spend fortunes there, and so the proverb says: “The voyage to Corinth isn’t for just any man.”""
You can google Strabo, geographer, Corinth and find this quote on several different sites.

That's fine, but do we have any primary sources that tell us that culture or the temple prostitutes were the reason that Paul gave these instructions. I'm leery of commentators because we can find one who believes just about anything we want to believe. I'd much prefer the words of someone who was there or at least close in time.

 

[Malachi]

Malachi do you wear sandals.. I sure hope so i hope you teach your brothers to do the same..
Mar 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Mar 6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

In Scripture, context is everything. When you examine the context of this passage, you will note that these instructions were given very specifically, to a very specific group, during a very specific period in the earthly ministry of Christ. They have no bearing on the Church today, and pulling Scriptures out of context does violence to Scripture.

1. The instructions were specifically to the 12 apostles.
2. The apostles were sent only to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10:5,6).
3. The apostles were sent to all the towns and cities of Galilee (by implication, since the Samaritans and the Gentiles were excluded at this time, and the Lord was in Galilee).

 

[Sinthesis]

I don't believe that Paul, in 1Co 11, is proscribing any type of dress code. Instead I think he is using the contrast between Greek and Jewish customs to illustrate that prophecy and prayer are to be done under the authority of Jesus, and not a purely human authority such as one's husband.

 

[Butch5]

This thread is taking on some bizarre aspects, and all kinds of irrelevant facts and Scriptures are being tossed around as though they have a bearing on the subject. We even have Scriptures from the OT which have nothing to do with the woman's head covering.

To claim that a specific teaching in Scripture is limited to the first century or to the local assembly which was addressed is pure nonsense. If that is true, then none of the epistles are relevant to Christians ever since the end of the apostolic period. We might as well cut out 85% of the New Testament and say "That does not apply".

But the beauty of this passage (1 Cor 11:1-16) is that the Holy Spirit anticipated the nay-sayers and the contentious who would challenge Paul's teaching. Note carefully what he says by Divine inspiration in verse 16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

What exactly is Paul saying in this concluding verse? He has already expounded the teaching on the woman's head covering in the preceding 15 verses. Now he sums up everything by saying that if any person decides to dispute or quarrel about this teaching, let him know that none of the churches of God throughout the Roman empire have a custom of having women uncovering their heads. Those words are not there, but that is precisely what is implied. This is sufficient to tell us that this was not a teaching to be limited to Corinth, but it was to be universally applied to every church in every age. The fact is that many Christian women accept this teaching today and practice it. The sad truth is that many Christian women disregard it, instead of teaching it to their sisters in the faith.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Malachi]

That's fine, but do we have any primary sources that tell us that culture or the temple prostitutes were the reason that Paul gave these instructions.

Butch5,
You are correct in being leery of these various explanations as to why Paul wrote whatever he wrote. Since all conservative Christians believe that 1 Corinthians is the Divinely inspired Word of God, all we must do is focus on God's words to the churches God, regardless of what was happening (or not happening) outside in the Gentile world. BTW temple prostitution exists to this day in India. So what? Looks like we need a verse by verse and word by word study of the passage in question (which will probably be disregarded by the nay-sayers).

 

[Malachi]

I don't believe that Paul, in 1Co 11, is proscribing any type of dress code. Instead I think he is using the contrast between Greek and Jewish customs to illustrate that prophecy and prayer are to be done under the authority of Jesus, and not a purely human authority such as one's husband.

There's a lot more here than Greek and Jewish customs. Paul goes all the way back to creation, and the relation between Adam and Eve (vv. 8-11). This passage is about Headship. Everything flows from the fact that God the Father is the Head of God the Son (even though they are co-equal) (v. 3), and thus there is a chain of authority which began with Adam.