-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Headcover
- Thread starter John3v36
- Start date
I'm sorry, I must have missed the evidence, could you point my attention to it?Originally posted by Johnv:
No reason to bump. There' nothing here to discuss. I stated, and showed ample support for Paul referring to a cultural item of the time, and you don't agree with that. There's really nothing more to be said.
Really? How do you escape the command in this passage? Why did Paul write to the Corinthian church to follow this if it was not a command?Originally posted by Johnv:
There is no command to wear headcovering. There is only the spiritual application of headship, where Paul uses the analogy of headcovering to make his point regarding spiritual headship.
Reread the passage:
I Corinthians 11:2-16
Now I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn, let her be covered. 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. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
I grow tired of posting this, but here goes. This has got to be among the most abused and most misunderstood verses in the Bible:
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Without seeing the previous verses, this verse is taken completely out of context. The previous verses are: But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The order is God is above Christ; Christ is above the man, and the man above the woman. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (Christ).
The previous verses make it clear that the "head covering" is a symbol for headship. A man who prays without authority dishonors Christ. A women who does the same without her spouse's blessing dishonors her spouse. The examples become more clear when you take into consideration the customs of headwear at that time. It doesn't say men and women can't pray pr prophesy, nor does it require or discourage men and women in their head attire. Since head attire customs today are not what they were then, the context of this verse is often difficult to discern.
One thing, however, is clear. This verse is NOT intented to require women from keeping their heads covered.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Without seeing the previous verses, this verse is taken completely out of context. The previous verses are: But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The order is God is above Christ; Christ is above the man, and the man above the woman. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (Christ).
The previous verses make it clear that the "head covering" is a symbol for headship. A man who prays without authority dishonors Christ. A women who does the same without her spouse's blessing dishonors her spouse. The examples become more clear when you take into consideration the customs of headwear at that time. It doesn't say men and women can't pray pr prophesy, nor does it require or discourage men and women in their head attire. Since head attire customs today are not what they were then, the context of this verse is often difficult to discern.
One thing, however, is clear. This verse is NOT intented to require women from keeping their heads covered.
Headcovering was not a cultural custom? Headcovering was VERY MUCH part of the local customs of the Jewish women of Judea and women in differing areas of the Roman Empire. Head coverings were in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. This is historical fact.
If we were to presume that parts of the early church women practiced the wearing a head covering when praying or prophesying, it would not have been viewed as unusual. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her submission to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed.
Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman be required to wear a head covering would often seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to be a symbol of the woman’s submission, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect would be just the opposite of what Paul intended, if taken literally.
As for the use of different words used, the noun kalumma (veil) is the understood object of the participle ecwn (having). Kata is used in its ablative sense to mean "down from". So the idea is "having a veil down from the head," i.e., having one's head covered with a veil.
If we were to presume that parts of the early church women practiced the wearing a head covering when praying or prophesying, it would not have been viewed as unusual. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her submission to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed.
Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman be required to wear a head covering would often seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to be a symbol of the woman’s submission, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect would be just the opposite of what Paul intended, if taken literally.
As for the use of different words used, the noun kalumma (veil) is the understood object of the participle ecwn (having). Kata is used in its ablative sense to mean "down from". So the idea is "having a veil down from the head," i.e., having one's head covered with a veil.
Then a few verses later, John, we will apply your same logic.Originally posted by Johnv:
The previous verses make it clear that the "head covering" is a symbol for headship.
One thing, however, is clear. This verse is NOT intented to require women from keeping their heads covered.
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
One thing, however, is clear. These verses are NOT intended to require the church from using the bread and wine to celebrate the Lord's Table--because they are only the physical symbols (as the headcovering is). They only symbolize the body and blood of Christ just as the headcovering only symbolizes headship. Consistent aren't we?
DHK
But it's not an accurate comparison, because Paul's topic was that of an already-existing spiritual headship, not headcovering. Jesus was instituting a new ordinance.
However, since you made the comparison, no one is required to partake in communion. It's strictly voluntary. Communion does not save, does not heal, and does not forgive. It only symbolizes. Communion amongst believers is never compulsory, only voluntary. Likewise, use of headcovering is strictly voluntary.
If you were to insist on consistency, it would literally be wine, not grape juice. And while you're at it, it should be accepted as Christ literal body and blood. Now who's being inconsistent??
However, since you made the comparison, no one is required to partake in communion. It's strictly voluntary. Communion does not save, does not heal, and does not forgive. It only symbolizes. Communion amongst believers is never compulsory, only voluntary. Likewise, use of headcovering is strictly voluntary.
If you were to insist on consistency, it would literally be wine, not grape juice. And while you're at it, it should be accepted as Christ literal body and blood. Now who's being inconsistent??
It is a fairly good comparison.
The definition of a Baptist Church:
"A church is an assembly of immersed believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together in order to keep the two ordinances of Christ (Baptism by immersion, and the Lord's Table), and to carry out the Great Commission, as He has commanded us."
A city has many ordinances. The word "ordinance" means law. The local church has two of them: baptism and the Lord's Supper, and neither one of them are voluntary. They are both commands of our Lord. "Do this in remembrance of me," is a command that is to be kept. It is not optional. Paul was correcting abuses in the Corinthian Church. The consequences of their abuses of the Lord's Table led to many of them being very sick, and to the deaths of others (11:30). The consequence of not wearing a headcovering was also serious--having your head shaved bald. It also was not optional.
Your interpretation is moot. It is irrelevant. If you choose to interpret the passage in a Catholic manner it is unwise, but that is your choice. That can be taken up in another discussion.
DHK
The definition of a Baptist Church:
"A church is an assembly of immersed believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together in order to keep the two ordinances of Christ (Baptism by immersion, and the Lord's Table), and to carry out the Great Commission, as He has commanded us."
A city has many ordinances. The word "ordinance" means law. The local church has two of them: baptism and the Lord's Supper, and neither one of them are voluntary. They are both commands of our Lord. "Do this in remembrance of me," is a command that is to be kept. It is not optional. Paul was correcting abuses in the Corinthian Church. The consequences of their abuses of the Lord's Table led to many of them being very sick, and to the deaths of others (11:30). The consequence of not wearing a headcovering was also serious--having your head shaved bald. It also was not optional.
Your interpretation is moot. It is irrelevant. If you choose to interpret the passage in a Catholic manner it is unwise, but that is your choice. That can be taken up in another discussion.
DHK
It was YOU who brought it up, so don't you dare accuse me of inerpreting anything in a Catholic manner. I see nothing "Catholic" in my previous post, so I would appreciate an apology from you for a false accusation. The topic was headcovering, not communion. It is YOUR comparison of the two is moot. They're apples and oranges. Your attempt at bait-and-switch topic discussion is rather infantile.Originally posted by DHK:
Your interpretation is moot. It is irrelevant. If you choose to interpret the passage in a Catholic manner it is unwise, but that is your choice. That can be taken up in another discussion.
It was YOU who brought it up, so don't you dare accuse me of inerpreting anything in a Catholic manner. I see nothing "Catholic" in my previous post, so I would appreciate an apology from you for a false accusation. The topic was headcovering, not communion. It is YOUR comparison of the two is moot. They're apples and oranges. Your attempt at bait-and-switch topic discussion is rather infantile. </font>[/QUOTE]John you can only stretch a comparison so far. How you can read consubstantiation or transubstantiantion, or any other interpretation into my comparison is beyond me. Like I said it is a moot point. It has nothing to do with the illustration. The simple illustration is Paul used a headcovering (a physical symbol) to illustrate a spiritual principle (headship). It came with a command. Let the women be covered.Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Your interpretation is moot. It is irrelevant. If you choose to interpret the passage in a Catholic manner it is unwise, but that is your choice. That can be taken up in another discussion.
In the same way, Paul (or our Lord) used bread and wine (physical symbols) to illustrate a spiritual principle (the sacrifice of Christ). It came with a command. Do this in remembrance of me.
Nothing further was to be read into the illustration. I wasn't speaking about the Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist theology of the Lord's Supper, so why even bring it up. It is irrelevant.
Paul uses physical symbols in the Lord's supper.
He uses the headcover as a physcial symbol. To say that because the headcovering is only a symbol and therefore not compulosory, is as illogical to say that the bread and wine are only symbols and not compulsory. That is all that I am pointing out--the flaw in your logic.
There is a command for women to wear a headcovering, that cannot be negated simply because you believe it to be a symbol. That doesn't make sense does it?
A command is a command. Let the women be covered. It was a command that stood in the first century, and it has never changed. To disobey it is sin.
DHK
What? A Humiliating experience? Talk to any of the women in my church if wearing their headcovering is humiliating, and they will declare quite the opposite. Why? Because they understand the principle behind the covering. It is not merely a spiritual analogy to them, they see it as a command. According to your logic, certain parts of the NT can be discounted since they carry cultural applications. Is homosexuality okay now? Homosexuality is so prevelant in our culture, that to be anti-homosexual would be humiliating.Originally posted by Johnv:
Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman be required to wear a head covering would often seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience.
Not suprisingly, I'm not seeing the word "Kalumma" in there at all. However, the question is not, what is the Greek meaning of those words. The question is, if Paul did not mean it as a command, why did he use two different words for 'covered' or 'covering.'Originally posted by Johnv:
As for the use of different words used, the noun kalumma (veil) is the understood object of the participle ecwn (having). Kata is used in its ablative sense to mean "down from". So the idea is "having a veil down from the head," i.e., having one's head covered with a veil.
Originally posted by DHK:
John you can only stretch a comparison so far. How you can read consubstantiation or transubstantiantion, or any other interpretation into my comparison is beyond me.
It was YOU who made the catholic comparison, not me, and then YOU accuse me of catholicizing the comparison? Ridiculous.
The simple illustration is Paul used a headcovering (a physical symbol) to illustrate a spiritual principle (headship). It came with a command. Let the women be covered.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Flat out wrong. Paul uses the analogy of headcovering to make a point about spiritual headship.
In the same way, Paul (or our Lord) used bread and wine (physical symbols) to illustrate a spiritual principle (the sacrifice of Christ). It came with a command. Do this in remembrance of me.
We're not commanded to partake in communion by Jesus. Communion is not mandatory. It's voluntary. Also, this is not a command to take communion, it's an instruction on what the bread and whine are supposed to represent.
Nothing further was to be read into the illustration. I wasn't speaking about the Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist theology of the Lord's Supper, so why even bring it up. It is irrelevant.
YOU brought up the Catholic reference.
To say that because the headcovering is only a symbol and therefore not compulosory, is as illogical to say that the bread and wine are only symbols and not compulsory.
It's an irrelevant and illogical comparison. Like a geocentrist saying that, if the sun doesn't literally rise, then how do we know the Son really rose. The two are not interchangeable as comparison.
That is all that I am pointing out--the flaw in your logic.
The flaw is in your comparison, not my logic.
There is a command for women to wear a headcovering, that cannot be negated simply because you believe it to be a symbol.
No, there's an insctuction to both men and women in regards to spiritual headship.
Then, it is also a sin for men to wear hats, by your logic. Jesus and the Jews of the time often covered their heads as a cultural symbol of devotion to God.A command is a command. Let the women be covered. It was a command that stood in the first century, and it has never changed. To disobey it is sin.
Originally posted by MennoMan:
According to your logic, certain parts of the NT can be discounted since they carry cultural applications. Is homosexuality okay now? Homosexuality is so prevelant in our culture, that to be anti-homosexual would be humiliating.
There's a direct OT command that calls homosexuality an abomination. There's no command for women to be covered, any more than, as I pointed out in the previous thread, that there's a command for men to keep their heads uncovered.
However, as far as cultural references, cultural Christianity doesn't seem to think that a proud heart and unfair business practices are as sinful as homosexuality, yet the OT clearly lists these as abominations also. Sad, but true.
One is an action, one is an object. This is by no mean supports the idea that headcoverings is compulsory. However, I ask again, is it a sin for men to have their heads covered? You can't have one without the other. I suggest you toss out all your baseball caps, and any jackets with hoods.if Paul did not mean it as a command, why did he use two different words for 'covered' or 'covering.'
I think that it would be important to note the key phrase in there "while praying or prophesying."Originally posted by Johnv:
However, I ask again, is it a sin for men to have their heads covered? You can't have one without the other. I suggest you toss out all your baseball caps, and any jackets with hoods.
Good point, and on that we agree, but since we're to pray without ceasing, in other words, consistently, isn't that supposed to be perpetually? As for prophesying, prophesying is telling others about God. Should I be required to remove my baseball cap if I'm at, say, Disneyland with a group of friends, and we start having a conversation about Jesus? Before you think it's a stretch, it happens with me all the time.Originally posted by MennoMan:
I think that it would be important to note the key phrase in there "while praying or prophesying."
And you know as well as I do that a great many headcovering literalists insist that women keep their heads covered all the time.
Good point, and on that we agree, but since we're to pray without ceasing, in other words, consistently, isn't that supposed to be perpetually? As for prophesying, prophesying is telling others about God. Should I be required to remove my baseball cap if I'm at, say, Disneyland with a group of friends, and we start having a conversation about Jesus? Before you think it's a stretch, it happens with me all the time.Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MennoMan:
I think that it would be important to note the key phrase in there "while praying or prophesying."
And you know as well as I do that a great many headcovering literalists insist that women keep their heads covered all the time. </font>[/QUOTE]Context is everything John. If you go back to 1Cor.7:1, you find that the Corinthians had written a letter to Paul. This epistle is the answer to the questions that Corinthians had asked him. It is written to the church. It deals with church matters. Wearing the headcovering, in context, is wearing the headcovering in church. And yes it is a shame for a man or boy to wear a baseball cap in church. You better believe it is. But that doesn't mean he has to throw it out as you suggest. That doesn't make sense. He can still wear it to the game, outdoors, and various other places. The context is the church. The man must have his head uncovered in the church, and the woman must have her head covered in the church. He was addressing the Church at Corinth. The problem being addressed at that church is applicable to other churches as well.
During the service what do you do? Much of the time, even during the message, one should at least be in an attitude of prayer. God is a God of order. I was raised a Catholic. I remember: kneel, stand, sit, kneel, sit, stand, kneel, stand, etc., etc. I don't fathom the same thing in a Baptist Church: pray (hats on); Amen (hats off); pray (hats on); Amen (hats off); pray (hats on) Amen (hats off), etc. etc. A bit legalistic don't you think. The teaching is that a woman should have her head covered in the church. What is the purpose of the church? They gathered together to pray, and be edified by the preaching (prophesying) of God's Word. Obviously they kept their heads covered--in the church!
DHK
Good point, and on that we agree, but since we're to pray without ceasing, in other words, consistently, isn't that supposed to be perpetually? As for prophesying, prophesying is telling others about God. Should I be required to remove my baseball cap if I'm at, say, Disneyland with a group of friends, and we start having a conversation about Jesus? Before you think it's a stretch, it happens with me all the time.Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MennoMan:
I think that it would be important to note the key phrase in there "while praying or prophesying."
And you know as well as I do that a great many headcovering literalists insist that women keep their heads covered all the time. </font>[/QUOTE]A. Pray without ceasing does not mean perpetual prayer literall. It denotes more of an attitude of prayer.
B. Prophesying is not merely telling others about God. You are dead wrong in that aspect. But that is a completely different topic.
C. Yes, many headcovering literalists do insist that a woman keep her head covered at all times. So what's your point?
Your fallacy is that you overspiritualize the passages that you don't want to follow. Do you do the same with the tithe? Or aiding the widows and fatherless? Isn't the principle behind those more important than actually following those commands?
Ageed. Contextually, there's no biblical command for men to keep their heands uncovered, or women to keep their heads covered. The context is one of analogy to spiritual headship.Originally posted by DHK:
Context is everything John.