1 Cor 11:4-10. Headcovering for women!

Ditto

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Well said Helen!

Diane

 

Many Baptist churches in Northern Ireland expect head coverings, but how sad that you have never found a Baptist church which tolerates it. You should have that liberty. Do they tell you that you must remove the covering? </font>[/QUOTE]That is interesting to learn that the headcovering is expected in your country. How wonderful.

I was not told to remove it straight out, but rather treated as one who does not belong there. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, do not want to be misunderstood. I said that some churches in Northern Ireland expect it, some do not. Here in the Irish Republic there are differences as well, I pastor a small Baptist church and we do not expect head coverings, but would NEVER deprive you of that liberty.

 

My 'covering' is the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

Okay, lets just deal with the text. Paul obviously knew that the Corinthians were saved and "covered" by Christ. That is not what he is talking about though.

The issue is whether or not 1 Cor. 11 transcends time, or is to be understood in the various cultural settings that we believe were going on.

I believe it transcends time (but the KIND of outward covering doesn't necessarily).

It is obedience to God that this discussion is about, not a person's salvation.

 

Bearing in mind the creative order and the purpose of a woman’s creation in the first place the women at Corinth were commanded “to have power on her head” “Power” means a covering or veil. The reason given for this covering is “because of the angels."

What does it mean? I believe that it is a warning referring back to Gen 6 when the angels, leaving their first estate cohabited with men and incurred God’s wrath as a result. (That's a whole new can of worms ). That is, they abandoned the creative order, just as a woman does when she seeks to usurp the role of a man in her appearance or any other way.

Incidentally, the church I Pastor has both women who wear a headcovering and those who don't. We consider it a case of "Let every (woman) be fully persuaded in (her) own mind." (Rom 14:5). Having said that, as and when we fellowship with churches which hold this belief, all our ladies wear a headcovering so as both to respect their fellow believers and to avoid unnecessary offence.

 

Several were ready to jump on HCL's interpretation of vs 10, but none offered an alternative view.

As DD said, "lets just deal with the text." The question was:

"Just what exactly [does] 'because of the angels' mean?"

 

HCL, our church does not teach veiling for women, but I guarantee we would "tolerate" and you would be very welcome in our church. We are a University Town so we have many different cultures here and we welcome all to our church.

Interesting Thread.

 

That is exactly what I have been thinking of. If it does not mean that a woman is required to wear a sign (headcovering) what does it mean? Why are the angels even mentioned in this passage?

 

HCL, our church does not teach veiling for women, but I guarantee we would "tolerate" and you would be very welcome in our church. We are a University Town so we have many different cultures here and we welcome all to our church.

Interesting Thread. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe we will visit one day...

 

Bearing in mind the creative order and the purpose of a woman’s creation in the first place the women at Corinth were commanded “to have power on her head” “Power” means a covering or veil. The reason given for this covering is “because of the angels."

What does it mean? I believe that it is a warning referring back to Gen 6 when the angels, leaving their first estate cohabited with men and incurred God’s wrath as a result. (That's a whole new can of worms ). That is, they abandoned the creative order, just as a woman does when she seeks to usurp the role of a man in her appearance or any other way.

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for that interesting insight in to what "because of the angels" means. I had not ever thought of that.

If you feel led to could you go a bit deeper?

 

&gt;&gt;1. Does the argument of 'cultural relativity' stand its test of Scripture and if it does, how/why?&lt;&lt;

What I believe about 1 Corinthians 11 is what I beleive about 1 Corinthians on the whole. It is for that "time" specifically, but can apply to other times, based on personal convictions given by God.
1 Corinthians is a letter from Paul to the church in Corinth, where there were problems of divisiveness, as well as others.
In Verses 1:1-6:20 Paul is addressing the problems specific to that church. In verses 7:1-16:24 Paul is answering the questions that were sent to him from that specific church.

Looking at verses 11:1-16, we need to take into consideration the context of the verses around them and the Bible as a whole, and what was going on culturally.

Verses surrounding-Instruction on public worship in the church
Biblical context-we know that Salvation comes only thru accepting Chirst. That is all that is required.
Culturally-we see a church that has members from both Jewish and Greek heritage. Jewish women had always covered their head in worship, where the Greeks may have been used to worshipping without them. Also in that area-Corinth-long hair on men was a sign of prostitution in the pagan temples and short hair on women was a sign of prostitution. Whereas in other cultures, long hair on men was considered appropiate and masculine.

Paul was suggesting that beleivers should look and behave in ways that are honorable within their own culture, BUT that we should also avoid appearances and behavior that detract from being a believable witness for Christ and demonstrating our faith in Him.

So, culturally now, I think it is more a "personal conviction" as opposed to a cultural "rule" among Christians.


2. Just what exactly 'because of the angels' mean?&lt;&lt;
Not sure, waiting to see what others say about that one.

 

I Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

I think this verse means that angels are present in the service and if something is amiss the angels are seeing it amiss and we don't want the angels to have to see things going awry.

Like kids who are told their parents are watching will suddenly start to behave better, this is the affect Paul is reaching for in the church.

As to the thing that is amiss, it is in my mind a cultural thing to be shocked at the absense of a veil or covering on a woman's head; and we should respect the feelings of others on such a point, this is Paul's consistent teaching over and over.

 

But, for angels is there another directive somewhere that says don't be concerned anymore, that was just for "that" time? Somewhere in the Holy Bible?

 

Here's a link to a very interesting article on the angels mentioned here. It's WAY too long to post but shows many sides of each argument. I do not know this author.

http://www3.shore.net/~anderson/1Cor11angels.html#Subordinate

 

We belong to Jesus,our sign of being a christian is that we are washed clean, covered by His blood. Notice we are already covered, by His blood, I am sure angels can tell the difference, thay are not dumb.
As usual, you came abusing scripture, taking it out of context. And now adding to it.
Angels only go and do what God tells them to do. God knows who belongs to Him and who does not. No sign is needed.
Theres a scripture(can't remember where but will look it up if necessary, if you don't know scripture) where God says I will bless who I will bless, that He chooses who to bless, He bless the good and the bad, that means to me that He chooses who and how to bless based not on ourselves but on Him and who He is. Blessings come from the grace of God, you can not earn that by works, nor can you disearn(not earn) it based on works.
If women are required to wear a sign, then why is it not taught in other scripture? Why would it only be mentioned one time? Not like other impotant topics in scripture which are repeated in different ways so we can understand it.
Jesus condemned thos who needed a sign.
You decided several months ago that the Lord wanted you to leave the BB becasue by replying tomen, or in topics that had men posting on them you were actually teaching men. Why would God double back on Himself and lead you here now? Doesn't sound like God, telling someone to do something He aready told them was wrong.

 

Thanks Diane for that link. I have not read the whole thing, only part of it. I thought this was interesting:

"The angels are generally the bearers and representatives of the relative principles necessarily posited with the work of God, and they are specifically the bearers and representatives of the indirect human orders necessarily posited with the divine work of salvation. They cannot, therefore, see these orders violated without sorrow."

 

Verse 10 (i Cor 11:10) "For this cause..." Here we get into the results of a causal clause...it refers back to the origins of man and woman and for what purpose they were created. The man first and the woman from man's side. It would appear at the outset that man is superior to woman, but God settles that one. He puts man and woman on equal footing as a person. There is a sense of authority, one over the other. Paul states this in Corinthians, that the woman is subject to the man who takes charge of things. It is not a position of subservience. Now to verse 10 and the passage..."power on her head because of the angels." Culturally, this was a sign. To-day it is not. If one reads the profane history of the times, it is immediate knowledge that women were going about Corinth dressed and giving the appearance of man. This further permeated the church, except the women were covering their heads with a veil for church services, as it were. This is what Paul is addressing. If you do it here, then do it there. Don't be inconsistent.

Now the Greek word for power is exousia. This word is translated as "authority" and also in other parts of Corinthians as "liberty". In this instance it must mean "authority" in context. Authority, yes, but only in context, and in direct relation to the cultural clime in that particular area, and in light of events.

If we neglect cultural setting in trying to understand what scripture is saying, then we are doing a great injustice to His word. For, we observe culture in other places, and yet choose where it should be ignored. We should look quite foolish to-day if we did not observe cultural differences not only in time, but from country to country.

I really thought we had dispensed with this topic sometime ago.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Whoa, donnA, why the personal attack? HCL is entitled to be here and to her convictions, no matter if they differ from yours or someone else's. This has been a good discussion with differing viewpoints. No need to attack people.

 

I have not attacked anyone, and do not appreciate being falsely accused.
I pointed out to her what she said, and that God does not call us to do something HE has told us was wrong.
Do you disagree with that? Do you beleive in one breath God says thats wrong for you, and then in the next tells you to do it?
Nope, haven't seen God do it in scripture. He would be unstable if He did.