Should women wear headcoverings in church?

[Webb]

Amen

 

[felix]

There's Felix doing his best to backtrack now he's been called to account for his strange views on his 'word of God' doctrine.

Felix, given what you've said in that thread, I can't honestly see how you can make any serious contribution here at all. If it isn't the word of God, then how can you tell tL to go cover her head in a cupboard or something and pray?

I don't want to hijack this thread here but just replying. My views are not strange. I will accept only if it is present in the scriptures- nothing else.

Let me give you an example:

(2Sam 24:13) So Gad came to David and told him; and he said to him, "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or shall you flee three months before your enemies, while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' plague in your land? Now consider and see what answer I should take back to Him who sent me."

(1Chr 21:11-12) So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the LORD: 'Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated by your foes with the sword of your enemies overtaking [you,] or else for three days the sword of the LORD -- the plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now consider what answer I should take back to Him who sent me."

Who is to blame for this error - Gad or God? Both the authors of the books are quoting the 'Words of God' regarding the same event. Don't tell me both are correct and don't tell me scripture is error free. What God said is indeed error free, but what man hears and writes it down does have errors and what I have showed you is a classic example which none can deny. If you claim this scripture which does contain some minor errors, to be Word of God, then you actually blaspheme God before pagans because of the errors in human writings and claiming it to be God's.

Inspired by God does have errors when a imperfect human writes them:

(Matt 27:28) And they stripped Him and put a scarlet (G2847 κόκκινος kokkinos) robe on Him.
(John 19:2) And the soldiers twisted a crown of thorns and put [it] on His head, and they put on Him a purple (G4210 πορφυροῦς porphurous) robe.

scarlet or purple? How could the same God say two different things if it is the Word of God?

How about another mistake?
(Matt 27:9) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced,

Let's see where it is: (Zech 11:12) nothing like this in Jeremiah the prophet.

Oops.. inspired by God or Word of God!

So,
Can Word of God have mistakes? NO. Because, it is from God
Can scripture have mistakes? YES. Because, it is written by imperfect men inspire of it being inspired by God.

I am not fighting with you but just proving the truth.

totopic

Never mind. I said my views but I do have one more point. You can pray in your heart during work or driving or when you are in trouble - which is not known to anyone outside but only to God. When you do so, I don't think putting a head covering is necessary.

Just for Humor :toofunny
Woman : (in her heart) Oh God! Please help me I am in real trouble. It's dark here and there seems to be some thieves hiding here. Please walk with me until I go home.
God: No woman. I will not hear your prayer because you didn't put a head covering.
[Woman puts the head covering]
Thieves: (seeing a head covered dark figure) Oh No! there is a ghost in the dark. Let's run.
[The thieves ran away]
Woman : Thank you God. I will surely put head covering.

Howz it? I wrote it myself! Wow.. I think I too can write stories
I don't think God works the way I wrote the above conversation. What Paul wrote is His view with the information and knowledge of God which he has, not God's view.

 

[theLords]

Would you like to see the double standard you exhibit with your argument?

The one thing this discussion has thrown up (in my view, anyway) is the willingness that people are prepared to exhibit, in throwing overboard the words of the Holy Spirit when it doesn't suit.

You mean like declaring that Jesus Christ is not God, but a lesser than God and higher than the angels and man, pre-divine being? Despite the fact that the Word of God declares Jesus Christ as God?

We've got it here: 'The HSp told me that I shouldn't wear headcoverings' because its 'legalism' or some such nonsense.

We've got it here: 'The HSp told me that I shouldn't believe Jesus is God because it's 'polytheism' or some such nonsense.

'Only men advocate this'. Paul, of course, was a man too. Sorry, Paul. Go get your head examined.

'Only polytheists advocate this.' Jesus, of course, was a man who knew He was God. Sorry, Jesus. Go get your head examined.

We've got it in the baptism thread too.

'We don't need to be baptised, because the HSp convicts our hearts, teaches our hearts, and that's enough.'

We've got it in plenty of other threads too.

'We don't need to believe Jesus Christ is God, because the HSp convicts our hearts, teaches our hearts, and that's enough.'

Never mind what the HSp says in God's most prized book.

Never mind what the HSp says about Jesus Christ in God's most prized book.

The HSp is now saying, 'Forget it, it's an optional extra guys. I made a mistake in those early days when the culture wasn't quite like it is now. I couldn't see down a few thousand years'.

The HSp is now saying, 'Forget it, believing in Christ as God is an optional extra guys. I made a mistake in those early days when the culture wasn't quite like it is now. I couldn't see down a few thousand years.'

Hadn't you people better get your views on the inspiration and authority of scripture settled in your minds?

The day you declare Jesus Christ as God, is the day you have an un-cracked cornerstone and foundation in Jesus Christ. Hadn't you Arians better get your views on the inspiration and authority of Christ's Nature in Scripture settled in your minds?

If it isn't inspired and authoritative, then forget it. Go play on the literature forums and such like. There's no need for you to stay here.

If Jesus Christ is not God, and the the Bible isn't inspired and authoritative when it says He is, then forget it. Go play on the literature forums and such like. There's no need for you to stay here.

If it IS authoritative, then for pity's sake, let's treat it as such and obey what is so clearly says.

If it IS authoritative, then for pity's sake, let's treat it as such and declare what is so clearly says--that Jesus Christ is God over all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not picking on your Arianism. What I am hoping you can see is the folly of your argument and why it falls away to pieces when closely scrutinized.

It's easy to tell others that the Bible states that women should wear head coverings and call those who don't believe your interpretation as rebellious (not obeying "clear" Biblical mandates), but it's harder to receive from others that the Holy Spirit has shown them differently.

It's a double standard. If it doesn't conform to your Biblical interpretations than it means that it's wrong? Yet, you wouldn't accept someone telling you that your Biblical interpretation of the pre-kinda-divine being Jesus Christ is not a reflection of the Word.

It's why, Paul, said: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5) Because when believers are called to be judged, they stand before God alone, answering before God alone, giving account to God alone.

 

[jasoncran]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kippah.html

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/607780/jewish/The-Kippah-Skullcap.htm

men should cover their heads since the ancient jews did it.

its a mens tradition to in the law of moses and such didnt have it but the talmud did.

:eeeekkk have at it boys. and guess what i bet paul had one when he was under gammeliel.

yet i wonder if asyncritus has his head shorn or long hair?

 

[Asyncritus]

Would you like to see the double standard you exhibit with your argument?

Which argument?

Are we on headcoverings, or trinitarianism?

From reading the rest of your post, it's obvious we're now on to trinitarianism. If you'd like to discuss that matter, maybe we should do it on a different thread.

You mean like declaring that Jesus Christ is not God, but a lesser than God and higher than the angels and man, pre-divine being? Despite the fact that the Word of God declares Jesus Christ as God?

totopic

We've got it here: 'The HSp told me that I shouldn't believe Jesus is God because it's 'polytheism' or some such nonsense.

totopic

'Only polytheists advocate this.' Jesus, of course, was a man who knew He was God. Sorry, Jesus. Go get your head examined.

totopic

We've got it in plenty of other threads too.

'We don't need to believe Jesus Christ is God, because the HSp convicts our hearts, teaches our hearts, and that's enough.'

totopic

Never mind what the HSp says about Jesus Christ in God's most prized book.

totopic

The HSp is now saying, 'Forget it, believing in Christ as God is an optional extra guys. I made a mistake in those early days when the culture wasn't quite like it is now. I couldn't see down a few thousand years.'

totopic

The day you declare Jesus Christ as God, is the day you have an un-cracked cornerstone and foundation in Jesus Christ. Hadn't you Arians better get your views on the inspiration and authority of Christ's Nature in Scripture settled in your minds?

totopic

[I'm not quite sure what an Arian is, and am really not interested in theological history and labels. If you want to paste a tag on me, try monotheist, or better yet, scripturalist.]

If Jesus Christ is not God, and the the Bible isn't inspired and authoritative when it says He is, then forget it. Go play on the literature forums and such like. There's no need for you to stay here.

totopic

If it IS authoritative, then for pity's sake, let's treat it as such and declare what is so clearly says--that Jesus Christ is God over all.

totopic

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to tell others that the Bible states that women should wear head coverings

Am I telling anybody that the Bible says so, or is it the Holy Spirit doing that through the apostle Paul?

and call those who don't believe your interpretation as rebellious (not obeying "clear" Biblical mandates), but it's harder to receive from others that the Holy Spirit has shown them differently.

Look tL - I don't believe the HSp would tell us one thing yesterday, and a different thing tomorrow, and another the day following. God doesn't work like that. Otherwise, where would we be?

It's a double standard. If it doesn't conform to your Biblical interpretations than it means that it's wrong?

They're not MY Biblical interpretations, tL.

It's as plain as the nose on your face that that is exactly what it's saying. It doesn't need any help from me - and what is certain, is that you know it to be so too - otherwise there wouldn't be all this hoo-hah.

Maybe you can't see it, but this is the thin edge of a very large wedge. Let me illustrate.

Gay marriages are 'sanctified' in churches these days. I actually saw a march with banners: 'Gays for Christ'.

But the whole Bible sets its face like a rock against homosexuality. If you ask the leaders of such organisations how they could possibly do these things, they'll tell you that the 'Holy Spirit leads us to accept these things'.

The whole Bible sets its face like a rock against adultery. John the Baptist got his head chopped off for saying so. Yet we have churches 'sanctifying' adulterous marriages, 'meaningful relationships' they call them.

Why do they do that? Why, 'the Holy Spirit leads us that way' of course.

Shall I go on?

Yet, you wouldn't accept someone telling you that your Biblical interpretation of the pre-kinda-divine being Jesus Christ is not a reflection of the Word.

totopic

[...] Because when believers are called to be judged, they stand before God alone, answering before God alone, giving account to God alone.

That is perfectly correct, and I applaud your sentiment.

Nobody is going to account to me for their sins, I can tell you that for sure - I've got quite enough of my own to worry about, trust me.

But if I, and you, and Webb, and doubtless others, know full well, and believe full well that these are very plain, unambiguous and Divine commandments, and WE FAIL TO SAY SOMETHING, won't Ezekiel have some very hard words to say to us about failing to blow the trumpet?

 

[Asyncritus]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kippah.html

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/607780/jewish/The-Kippah-Skullcap.htm

men should cover their heads since the ancient jews did it.

We aren't Jews, Jason, so why is that a reason for anything?

its a mens tradition to in the law of moses and such didnt have it but the talmud did.

:eeeekkk have at it boys. and guess what i bet paul had one when he was under gammeliel.

And I bet he took it off when he became a Christian.

Jesus didn't have one after He rose from the dead. Did you know that?

yet i wonder if asyncritus has his head shorn or long hair?

Pretty short. (The single remaining one, I mean! Just kidding).

 

[jasoncran]

Why is that a reason for anything?


And I bet he took it off when he became a Christian.

Jesus didn't have one after He rose from the dead. Did you know that?



Pretty short. (The single remaining one, I mean! Just kidding).

because head covering comes from jewish traditions!

so if jesus did have one(which we dont know and it was commanded in the ot for women to have head coverings.) but those are some vague verses. it can be taken that way and i can see why.

look into the law of moses. you wont find it. the talmud does have some traditions that went to far and that is where that head covering

hmm and heres this

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoma...ter-of-the-Enlightenment-Ends-Up-in-a-Wig.htm


now look at why they had that womans hair covering? it was submission to the husband and that is from a culture thing. sheesh. abraham and those areas didnt have things that god didnt command but used. ie the language of hebrew and also other customs.

polygamy wasnt in gods plan but came from the cultural aroung then and so did slavery. should we then go back to slavery.

a single woman didnt have her head covered that meant they were available.

now then one can be a covered woman and be a whore!


didnt jesus do away with the law? yes he completed it in that we arent under some jewish(btw you a jew) customs and replaced it with his eternal priest hood. so if you are going to say that the women must be covered you best all be wearing the kippah!

both in the law!

 

[Asyncritus]

because head covering comes from jewish traditions!

But we are not under jewish traditions, but under Christ's laws. Several of which are in 1 Cor 11.

so if jesus did have one(which we dont know and it was commanded in the ot for women to have head coverings.) but those are some vague verses. it can be taken that way and i can see why.

We do know. The headcovering was left in the tomb, and in Rev 1 His hair is described as being white as wool. Therefore it was visible, and He did not have a turban, mitre or any of the high priest's gear on.

l

ook into the law of moses. you wont find it. the talmud does have some traditions that went to far and that is where that head covering

hmm and heres this

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoma...ter-of-the-Enlightenment-Ends-Up-in-a-Wig.htm


now look at why they had that womans hair covering? it was submission to the husband and that is from a culture thing. sheesh. abraham and those areas didnt have things that god didnt command but used. ie the language of hebrew and also other customs.

Jason it doesn't matter in the slightest. The church of Christ is an entirely different thing. If you don't know that, then where have you been all these years?

polygamy wasnt in gods plan but came from the cultural aroung then and so did slavery. should we then go back to slavery.

a single woman didnt have her head covered that meant they were available.

now then one can be a covered woman and be a whore!

See above. No jewish traditions allowed here.

didnt jesus do away with the law? yes he completed it in that we arent under some jewish(btw you a jew) customs and replaced it with his eternal priest hood. so if you are going to say that the women must be covered you best all be wearing the kippah!

both in the law!

See above. All this is irrelevant.

 

[theLords]

I'm not quite sure what an Arian is, and am really not interested in theological history and labels. If you want to paste a tag on me, try monotheist, or better yet, scripturalist.]

Arian is the term for Christians who believe, as you do, that Jesus Christ is not God. Monotheist and Scripturalist can apply to trinitarian Christians, as well, so those terms would be misleading.

totopictotopic

The fact that you refuse to recognize "the Spirit not the Letter" of the argument I presented (paralleled through the proclamation that Jesus Christ is God) says alot... I can easily dismiss your illustrated examples through homosexuality and adultery as off topic.

Am I telling anybody that the Bible says so, or is it the Holy Spirit doing that through the apostle Paul?

Unless you are the Holy Spirit or the re-incarnated apostle Paul, you, in fact, are telling people that the Bible says so. Especially, when we have women of the highest caliber like Handy, who would no doubt be praised by Paul like the other women of the NT for her dedication to Christ, so humbly address the issue and state what the Holy Spirit has shown her after vigorous Bible study.

Look tL - I don't believe the HSp would tell us one thing yesterday, and a different thing tomorrow, and another the day following. God doesn't work like that. Otherwise, where would we be?

This is true and Biblical, but we also see that God works through progression and many of the Levitical and cultural applications of the law have been fulfilled (and put away) in Christ. When was the last time you drank wine for a stomach ache instead of some Pepto? When was the last time you wore robes instead of slacks and a button down? When was the last time you had to go two miles with a Roman centurion?

They're not MY Biblical interpretations, tL.

Yes, they absolutely are, or we wouldn't have various different teachings and understandings within the church on the matter.

It's as plain as the nose on your face that that is exactly what it's saying.

You mean just as plain as:

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is that what you mean? Or did you mean as plain as this verse:

1 Corinthians 11:10 (NIV)
It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

It doesn't need any help from me - and what is certain, is that you know it to be so too - otherwise there wouldn't be all this hoo-hah.

Sorry, I didn't know you considered yourself as omnipotent as the Holy Spirit who could read hearts and minds. What is certain is the hypocrisy demonstrated in this thread is terrible. There should be plenty of hoo-hah over that.

Maybe you can't see it, but this is the thin edge of a very large wedge. Let me illustrate.

Gay marriages are 'sanctified' in churches these days. I actually saw a march with banners: 'Gays for Christ'.

But the whole Bible sets its face like a rock against homosexuality. If you ask the leaders of such organisations how they could possibly do these things, they'll tell you that the 'Holy Spirit leads us to accept these things'.

The whole Bible sets its face like a rock against adultery. John the Baptist got his head chopped off for saying so. Yet we have churches 'sanctifying' adulterous marriages, 'meaningful relationships' they call them.

Why do they do that? Why, 'the Holy Spirit leads us that way' of course.

Shall I go on?

It's easy to use the "Gays for Christ" excuse to invalidate the Holy Spirit working in us, but the Bible confirms the Holy Spirit's role in our lives from Genesis to Revelation. Sexual immorality is addressed multiple times in the Old and New Testaments, with even Christ making sure to address it. Head coverings has one verse dedicated to it in the NT.

That is perfectly correct, and I applaud your sentiment.

Nobody is going to account to me for their sins, I can tell you that for sure - I've got quite enough of my own to worry about, trust me.

But if I, and you, and Webb, and doubtless others, know full well, and believe full well that these are very plain, unambiguous and Divine commandments, and WE FAIL TO SAY SOMETHING, won't Ezekiel have some very hard words to say to us about failing to blow the trumpet?

This isn't a salvational issue and you are not the prophet Ezekiel. If you want to keep others from living eternally in hell, I think you should begin with spreading the Gospel that Jesus Christ is God who came to die for the sins of the world. Instead of focusing on a non-salvational issue, or arguing whether a verse needs "at" or "in". Christ didn't say, "Come to me [women] and I will give you rest and eternal life, but only if you wear a head covering."

I, personally, don't receive teaching from anyone who doesn't proclaim Jesus Christ as God or from those who claim homosexuality as righteoussness, or from those with logs in their eyes and love for legalism in their hearts.

BTW, next time you stone one of your church parishioners for being raped, let us all now, since of course, just like head coverings those weren't cultural practices, either.

Blessings.

 

[handy]

But we are not under jewish traditions, but under Christ's laws. Several of which are in 1 Cor 11.



We do know. The headcovering was left in the tomb, and in Rev 1 His hair is described as being white as wool. Therefore it was visible, and He did not have a turban, mitre or any of the high priest's gear on.

l

Jason it doesn't matter in the slightest. The church of Christ is an entirely different thing. If you don't know that, then where have you been all these years?



See above. No jewish traditions allowed here.




See above. All this is irrelevant.

I left this thread a while back, mainly because I had already shared what I had on this subject and there was nothing left to do but either argue or repeat myself...pointless endeavors, both.

However, I read with interest this and perhaps this might add something to the conversation...it was a new thought to me at least.

The thing about the priestly garments was that they were dictated by God....He wanted His priests to wear these garments.

Now, the main point for those who feel that women must wear head-coverings is that the reason given is the order of creation...That man was made in God's image and women in the image of man...

Looking again at what Paul wrote:
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 1 Corinthians 11:4, 7-9

So, is it a disgrace for man to have his head covered when praying, all men, for all time, in all cultures? If so, then why would God command His priests to have a head-covering, as He so clearly does in Exodus?

If one is going to say, "Well, it was for the priests of Israel, but not for the Church"...then we still have to conclude that the "reason" is steeped in custom. For all those priests of Israel were made in the image of God and were the image and glory of God.

If the idea that a head-covering was a disgrace for men to wear came from God, then it would be a disgrace for all men, for all time, Hebrew and Christian alike. However, if Paul was referring to the cultural dictates that viewed a man's covered head as a disgrace, and a woman's uncovered head as an equal disgrace, then the disparity makes sense.

Again, this goes back to wifely submission, the heart of the passage, God did create the man first and the woman from the man. God does place within our marriages certain roles. This is unchanging. But, what did change were the views regarding head-coverings...for the Jew, commanded of God for all of His priests, for the gentile Corinthians, a disgrace for any man to wear. The views on head-coverings have changed even more so...for the Eastern cultures, a sign of womanly subjugation to men, for Western cultures, a sign of out and out oppression of women.

 

[jasoncran]

But we are not under jewish traditions, but under Christ's laws. Several of which are in 1 Cor 11.



We do know. The headcovering was left in the tomb, and in Rev 1 His hair is described as being white as wool. Therefore it was visible, and He did not have a turban, mitre or any of the high priest's gear on.

l

Jason it doesn't matter in the slightest. The church of Christ is an entirely different thing. If you don't know that, then where have you been all these years?



See above. No jewish traditions allowed here.




See above. All this is irrelevant.

really?so paul has that level of authority? why then does he say if any have contention amongst yourselves theres is No such custom?

if God said that we are to do it then we are to do it with no exceptions.

odd if it was that level of command. in the days of the law the priest obeyed that law and if you actually read the article from chabad you would see that the woman who were that headress did so because of the concept of being submissive.

we can be submissive(woman) without headcover.

 

[Nathan Alterton]

I do not perceive the head covering to be cultural as Paul not only addressed his epistle to Corinth but to "---all that in everyplace calll upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord---" and in chapter 4 he wrote that he taught the same thing in "all the churches." This transcends culture and includes us.

First, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 4:17 that he taught "the same thing in all the churches" is regarding his admonition to the Church at Corinth to be imitators of Christ just as he is, as taught in the gospel, not that the prescription of headcoverings is a universal standard.

Second, Paul does seem to state that his discussion of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is somewhat regional and cultural in the concluding statement in verse 16 that reads,

Apostle Paul:
If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

It should also be noted that if the teaching on head coverings was universal, not cultural, it would prevent Christian Jews like Paul from taking a Nazirite vow. Nazirites could not cut their hair during the time of their vow, in fact they should let it "grow long." Additionally, once the time of their vow is complete they are directed to shave their heads.

Numbers 6:5 ESV
All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.

Numbers 6:13,18 ESV
And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, ... And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace offering.

Both of these mandates go against portions of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, where it is said that long hair is a disgrace to a man (vs 14) and likewise a shaved head is a disgrace to a woman. Yet it seems likely that Paul himself took a Nazirite vow at least once during his ministry (Acts 18:18) and that other Christians did the same at times (Acts 21:20-24). It was also reported by the Christian historian Epiphanius of Salamis that James, the brother of Jesus, was also a Nazirite for a time.

While there are not any Biblical examples of women taking a Nazirite vow, the Old Testament law clearly makes allowence for such a thing, as Numbers 30:4-9 lays out the conditions for a woman taking the vow. Clearly, if Paul's teaching on head coverings were universal, a woman could not complete the vow which required the shaving of her head.

All that said, short hair on a man was culturally a Greek practice but not generally a Jewish practice, where the men had much longer hair. When we notice that Corinth is located in a culturally Greek area, where long hair on men and short hair on women was looked down on, Paul's prescription makes a great deal of sense culturally, but not universally.

 

[jasoncran]

god doesnt have to follows the law he gave. i can show where he broke them laws

he commanded men to work(carry beds and walk) on the sabbaath,

he in the book of jonah forgave the ninvehites without any blood sacrifice.

he also disobeded pharisitical authority to whom he told the apostles that whatsover they bid do ye.


a vision of jesus of that nature isnt his physical body

did you notice what he wore? a priests clothes and had brass and his sash was high meaning judgment.
on revalation 1 and from study light org.

http://studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=001

Verse 13. Like unto the Son of man
This seems a reference to Daniel 7:13. This was our blessed Lord himself, ; Revelation 1:18.
Clothed with a garment down to the foot
This is a description of the high priest, in his sacerdotal robes. See these described at large in the notes on Exodus 28:4, even in heaven. He is still discharging the sacerdotal functions before the throne of God.
Golden girdle.
The emblem both of regal and sacerdotal dignity.
Verse 14. His head and his hairs were white like wool
This was not only an emblem of his antiquity, but it was the evidence of his glory; for the whiteness or splendour of his head and hair doubtless proceeded from the rays of light and glory which encircled his head, and darted from it in all directions. The splendour around the head was termed by the Romans nimbus, and by us a glory; and was represented round the heads of gods, deified persons, and saints. It is used in the same way through almost all the nations of the earth.
His eyes were as a flame of fire
To denote his omniscience, and the all-penetrating nature of the Divine knowledge. Verse 15. His feet like unto fine brass
An emblem of his stability and permanence, brass being considered the most durable of all metallic substances or compounds.

from study light org.

biblical hyperliterist2 try to actually learn something about jews will yah!

this is a vision that has meaning not the actual body he departed in.

 

[Asyncritus]

really?so paul has that level of authority? why then does he say if any have contention amongst yourselves theres is No such custom?

He meant that IN THE CHURCHES they had no such custom of women not wearing head coverings. THEY WORE THEM EVERYWHERE IN THE CHURCHES. That's why the subject isn't mentioned in any other letters.

if God said that we are to do it then we are to do it with no exceptions.

Yes, and He says so in 1 Cor 11 very clearly.

odd if it was that level of command. in the days of the law the priest obeyed that law and if you actually read the article from chabad you would see that the woman who were that headress did so because of the concept of being submissive.

I don't care what chabad or anybody else says. Paul says so in the inspired New Testament, and that's enough for me.

He was probably an expert on the Talmud and everything else - but you notice that neither he, nor the Lord, nor anybody else writing in the NT had any use for the scholars of the day and their opinions, except to condemn them.

You should follow their example and leave those things behind.

we can be submissive(woman) without headcover.

Yeah, we can be anything without headcover, except obedient to a simple instruction.

 

[Asyncritus]

First, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 4:17 that he taught "the same thing in all the churches" is regarding his admonition to the Church at Corinth to be imitators of Christ just as he is, as taught in the gospel, not that the prescription of headcoverings is a universal standard.

If he taught the same thing in all the churches, the why should you suppose that he taught diffferently about the HCs in other places?

In fact he expressly states that the churches have no such custom: meaning not wearing HCs.

Second, Paul does seem to state that his discussion of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is somewhat regional and cultural in the concluding statement in verse 16 that reads,

Show us.

It should also be noted that if the teaching on head coverings was universal, not cultural, it would prevent Christian Jews like Paul from taking a Nazirite vow. Nazirites could not cut their hair during the time of their vow, in fact they should let it "grow long." Additionally, once the time of their vow is complete they are directed to shave their heads.

All to the good, I would have said. The Nazirite vow, along with many other things, was voided as far as the church is concerned.

Both of these mandates go against portions of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, where it is said that long hair is a disgrace to a man (vs 14) and likewise a shaved head is a disgrace to a woman. Yet it seems likely that Paul himself took a Nazirite vow at least once during his ministry (Acts 18:18) and that other Christians did the same at times (Acts 21:20-24). It was also reported by the Christian historian Epiphanius of Salamis that James, the brother of Jesus, was also a Nazirite for a time.

There may well have been other vows that required the head to be shaved at the start or the termination of the specified period.

Whether that is so or not, is immaterial to the current discussion.

While there are not any Biblical examples of women taking a Nazirite vow, the Old Testament law clearly makes allowence for such a thing, as Numbers 30:4-9 lays out the conditions for a woman taking the vow. Clearly, if Paul's teaching on head coverings were universal, a woman could not complete the vow which required the shaving of her head.

All that said, short hair on a man was culturally a Greek practice but not generally a Jewish practice, where the men had much longer hair. When we notice that Corinth is located in a culturally Greek area, where long hair on men and short hair on women was looked down on, Paul's prescription makes a great deal of sense culturally, but not universally.

Then why does he give no indication that this was a cultural thing?

 

[jasoncran]

He meant that IN THE CHURCHES they had no such custom of women not wearing head coverings. THEY WORE THEM EVERYWHERE IN THE CHURCHES. That's why the subject isn't mentioned in any other letters.



Yes, and He says so in 1 Cor 11 very clearly.



I don't care what chabad or anybody else says. Paul says so in the inspired New Testament, and that's enough for me.

He was probably an expert on the Talmud and everything else - but you notice that neither he, nor the Lord, nor anybody else writing in the NT had any use for the scholars of the day and their opinions, except to condemn them.

You should follow their example and leave those things behind.



Yeah, we can be anything without headcover, except obedient to a simple instruction.

what a pharisee?

and really?

why then did jesus celebrate a talmudic holiday? its called channukah!
and what did paul mean by that?

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God

so a command can be overridden?

 

[handy]

Then why does he give no indication that this was a cultural thing?

He did...as has oft been pointed out:

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. KVJ

This is a custom...a practice. Same word that was used by Pilate when he said, "But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?"


I had made some points that bear repeating...

First, if this isn't a custom, if it is part of the eternal commands of God, then why does the church not shave a woman's head for disgracing her husband? If it's God's eternal commandments we're talking about here, we can't have one, without the other...either a woman's head is to be covered and if she disgraces her husband it should be shaved or cut.

By the same token, if these are God's eternal principles here, then those taking the Nazarite vow as well as God's priests were dishonoring God by having long hair or covering their heads with head coverings...except that, well, gee, God Himself commanded these things....

Why would God command His priests to wear headcoverings for thousands of years...when it was a dishonor to Him if they did so?

 

[Nathan Alterton]

If he taught the same thing in all the churches, the why should you suppose that he taught diffferently about the HCs in other places?

I'm saying that there's no evidence that Paul taught about head coverings at all, outside of these few verses in 1 Corinthians 11. Like all the epistles, Paul seems to be addressing a point of contention within the church at Corinth, a point which, it would appear didn't come up in the other churches to which he wrote letters.

In fact he expressly states that the churches have no such custom: meaning not wearing HCs.

Taking this last verse to mean that the other churches don't practice NOT wearing headcoverings (that's an awkward double negative), in my mind, requires some fairly advanced linguistic acrobatics.

All to the good, I would have said. The Nazirite vow, along with many other things, was voided as far as the church is concerned.

The Nazirite vow was never required for Jews to take, and I agree that it would be strange to see Christians today taking the vow, but in a culture where there were still large concentrations of Jewish Christians who went to synague and the Temple on a regular basis it happened that some of them, after the death and resurrection of Christ, still decided to take the vow. My point was, that given that some Christians did take the vow, in keeping it they would have broken with Paul's commentary on headcoverings in 1 Cor 11.

 

[Webb]

.Hi Handy

First I wish to say I believe you are one of the most sincere and godly persons on this forum, and that I appreciate. Between my pc being in repair of late and my wife's wishes that I wean myself some from time spent on the forum I have not done as much lately. I do however want to reply to your post # 90 with something that might be of help to you. You wrote: ''THE THING ABOUT PRIESTLY GARMENTS WAS THAT THEY WERE DICTATED BY GOD --- HE WANTED HIS PRIESTS TO WEAR THESE GARMENTS.'' and, ''SO, IS IT A DISGRASE FOR MAN TO HAVE HIS HEAD COVERED WHEN PRAYING, ALL MEN, FOR ALL TIME, IN ALL CULTURES? IF SO, THEN WHY WOULD GOD COMMAND HIS PRIESTS TO HAVE A HEAD--COVERNING, AS HE SO CLEARLY DOES IN EXODUS?"

First, lets be remended Paul wrote for those ''in every place." That transends time and culture.

Second, as to your point about the OT priests gear please note:

1. The priesthood HAS BEEN "CHANGED". ''FOR THE PRIESTHOOD BEING CHANGED, THERE IS MADE OF NECESSITY A CHANGE ALSO OF THE LAW." Hebrews 7:12.

2. The "LAW" also has been "CHANGED". Hebrews 7:12 again.

3. This "CHANGE" was "NECESSARY". Hebrews 7:12 again.

The office of the OT priest, together with his functions (including his garments and head coverning) have been VOIDED, changed, no longer necessary. WHY? Because all Christians (not just a class) have the right and power of priesthood before God, I Pet. 2:5,9 and the OT High Priest being no longer cecessary and thus voided we have instead a much better High Priest in heaven for us, Jesus, the Christ Hebrews 8:1. We today are under a 'BETTER COVENANT, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED UPON BETTER PROMISES." Hebrews 8:6.

 

[Nathan Alterton]

First, lets be remended Paul wrote for those ''in every place." That transends time and culture.

Hi Webb, nice to make make your aquaintence.

The greeting by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 can hardly be taken as a statement that everything that comes after is a universal command from God for all people for all time. Paul gave out advice at times, which was wisdom and common sense for the people or person he was writing to, and which was not a command from God. He said so himself, several times, even within his first letter to the Corinthians (See 1 Cor 7, where he says, in more than one place "I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy," and that he has no command from God on the subject of remarriage of a particular woman).

As both Handy and I have pointed out before, Paul says, in fairly unmistakable terms regarding the teaching he had just given on head coverings, if anyone wants to argue (be contentious) about this teaching, know that I don't keep this practice, nor do the Churches of God (my paraphase of verse 16). I haven't been paying really close attention to this discussion, so maybe someone has already done this, but I would be interested in seeing how someone on the other side of this issue deals with verse 16.

Regarding the point about the Old Testament Priesthood - I think both Handy and I probably agree that the Old Covenant law was changed and no longer relevent after the death and resurrection of Jesus, however I do believe that it's a valid point to say that it seems strange that God would command something under Old Covenant that He now sees as dishonorable.

Additionally, as I pointed out in my last post, Jewish men wore their hair long. That was the style, even in the first century. Paul is speaking to a Church in a Greek area, where the men wore their hair short and saw long hair on a man as being somewhat dishonorable. The epistles are full issues that pertain directly to problems and questions the recipient church is dealing with, so why don't we see similar teachings written by anyone to churches made up predominately of Jews, who would certainly have to cut their hair shorter meet the requirements of this teaching.