Not a custom of the church, but one of the culture and they should honer this .... h history. We don't derive doctrine a
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
No Custom? Or No Argument? - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/2/24 11:35 1Cr 11:16 KJV But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. NASB But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. NLT But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churche s of God feel the same way about it. Why would there be such a huge difference? I ran into one guy that said that coverings for women are mandatory. He s aid that it should be translated as the latter version. I fairly sure there are more versions that agree with the last one but I could not find them. These seem to be in complete contradiction.
Re: No Custom? Or No Argument? - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/2/24 11:50 The Message 16I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception. AMP 16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom than this, nor do the churches of God generally. CEV (Contemp. English) 16This is how things are done in all of God's churches, and that's why none of you should arg ue about what I have said. NLV (New Life Version) 16If anyone wants to argue about this, my answer is that this is what we teach, and all the churc hes agree with me. Of course there are many that agree with the KJV and NASB rendering but I just wanted to post more of these.
Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/2/25 10:44 I just wanted to bump this back up. No one has an explanation? Re: - posted by Graftedbranc, on: 2006/2/25 11:12 Jessie Peen Lewis did a wornderful treatment of this passage in "The Magna Carta of Women". In it she put's forth the interpretation that in these passages Paul is addressing a question put forth by the Corinthians in a letter they had written to Paul. In those days and especially in Corinth, for a woman to unveil in public was a public shame to her husband. She was co nsidered as a temple prostitute who would unveil. But for a man to veil was a dishoner to his Head which is Christ because the Tallith, or veil was a symbol of Condemnati on. So for a man to veil was to dishoner Christ and His redemption. Yet the believing women, who were experiencing the liberty which is in Christ by the Spirit saw no need to veil. They sai d in effect, 'We are in Christ, we are all on the same level, we have no need to veil". And so in the public gatherings whe
Page 1/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
n women would prophecy or pray unveiled, in their culture they were dishonering their head which is the husband in the eyes of outsiders. Paul tells them that becuase the man is the head of the woman she should not dishoner her head, but rather she should veil (for his sake). But the man should not veil because that was to dishoner Christ. Yet at the close of this portion, he emphasises that it is not a matter of legality, and that there is no imposed custom in th e churches. and that it should not be a matter of contention. It is a matter not of doctrine but of custom. Not a custom of the church, but one of the culture and they should honer this for the sake of the reputation of the gospel. It is also true in regard to woman "remaning silent and learning at home. It was not permitted for a woman to be "educat ed". So He told them the women who desired to learn, let them learn at home through their own husbands and not public ally to bring the gospel in disrepute. Paul in saying this is not degradng women but elevating them saying, "let them lear n at home", let them learn. But do so in a way that will not hinder the gospel or bring the church into disrepute. If you were to push many's view to its conclusion, because the bible says that we should pray without ceasing, and that speaking Christ should be our normal living day to day, a woman should always be veiled. And men should never wear a hat. Graftedbranch
Re: No Custom? Or No Argument?, on: 2006/2/25 15:52 Hi Preach, Do you have e-sword downloaded. 11 Commentaries Pop-up when you click on this verse. Hope this stays an ancient customs topic. ;-) Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/2/27 9:45 Yes, I have e-sword. I don't believe that it is required for a woman to have a covering. I am just wondering how different translators could come up with contridicting translations. One seems to say, "If you have a problem with this don't worry about it, we don't have this custom everywhere." And then the other says, "Don't argue this is how it is done everywhere ." Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/2/28 15:25 Does anyone know where I could find the answer to my question? It's not a life or death matter, I'm just very curious. Re: No Custom? Or No Argument? - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/1 22:57 I wondered when this isssue would surface on this forum....I do have a few points to make.. 1. It is not in the nature of the scriptures to address a local issue resricticted to a limited time/culture. 2. All Christian women wore a head covering when praying or prophesying until the 20th century. If you will study Christi an history you can easily see this. Even the pics of Christian women in the 19th century show them wearing a covering. Why do women NOT want to wear it should be the greater question, IMHO. It is written in 1 Corintians along with all the other admonitions/corrections, why pick this one out among all the others to say it no longer is applicable?
Page 2/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
EDIT: as I understand the verse you quoted - it means this is what we teach everywhere else and it is not a point we ar gue about! ginnyrose
Re: - posted by crsschk (), on: 2006/3/1 23:05 Quote: -------------------------2. All Christian women wore a head covering when praying or prophesying until the 20th century. If you will study Christian history y ou can easily see this. Even the pics of Christian women in the 19th century show them wearing a covering. -------------------------
Had just come across this the other day, it may be of some interest to you. It's the second 'letter' down; (http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/theremnant-January2006-letters.cfm) From an email Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/1 23:20 Mike, I checked out this site and here is a quote: "My wife has noticed that even ungodly people in the community treat her with a measure of reverence, tenderness and respect that she did not receive from people before. We can only contribute this to God’s blessings in obeying His com mandments regarding headcovering, modesty and a meek and quiet spirit. It brings to mind the verse Jesus spoke to Hi s disciples in John 14:21, He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. The word “manifest” means “to c ome to view”, “disclose” or “reveal”. I have indeed found this to be true. If we know what God has commanded us , even if we don’t understand it fully, he will reveal the reason and blessing of the commandment if we just bow our hea rts to Him and obey. He will indeed give us understanding and revelation." Brother, I can testify to the reality of this as well. :-) Blessings, ginnyrose Re: No Custom? Or No Argument? - posted by ravin, on: 2006/3/1 23:51 yes and what version does God use. the one we are looking for? the softer easyer way. you know the devil has his own version too, he used it on the Lord. we must all find the word of God thru the spirit. Spiritual things are discern by spiritual men. If we need wisdom God says ask for it. the Holy spirit will guide you into all truth. I pray the Holy Spirit lead you in Jesus name. Re: - posted by ccchhhrrriiisss (), on: 2006/3/2 1:20 Hi ginnyrose... Quote: -------------------------2. All Christian women wore a head covering when praying or prophesying until the 20th century. If you will study Christian history y ou can easily see this. Even the pics of Christian women in the 19th century show them wearing a covering. -------------------------
Actually, this practice is relatively new in light of history. It is not written about in the Old Testament, nor in any other pas sages found in the Word of God. Little is written about Christian customs following the rise of the Roman Church. Howe ver, outside of strict sects, there is little indication that such a practice was common until the past 500 years. It is important that we are careful about creating a tradition out of an interpretation of a single passage. Otherwise, tradit ions could be started for the "baptism of the dead" (I Corinthians 15:29), "taking up serpents" (Mark 16:18), etc... To em ploy a single verse to establish such a tradition seems unwise. It is my own opinion that this passage of Scripture is speaking of hair and not a bonnet, veil or man-made covering. Noti
Page 3/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
ce the end of this passage: Quote: ------------------------- 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. -------------------------
Many other versions (such as the NIV, NASB, etc...) concur with the KJV in this. The entire passage seems more direc ted about "hair length" (and possible worldliness thereof) than the Scriptural importance of wearing a hat. That being said, I actually attended a meeting in a strict Pentecostal Church once. On the wall of the kitchen, there was literally a sign that read: "They will know you are Christians by your headcoverings." It would have been humorous -- but I don't think it was meant to be funny. :-) Re:, on: 2006/3/2 1:45 Oh my. Next time I visit Times Square Church I better make sure to copy that link and give it to DW. He and his congregation should get it right. Yes, there is a mystique in shows of outward Holiness. We had to wear doilies (whatever) on our head when I was a Ca tholic. Now that 'is' History. Re: - posted by ravin, on: 2006/3/2 1:55 We must know if we are here to please God or man. We must believe in the unseen,God is spirit. seek ye first the kingdom of God... by faith we follow Gods written word. all scripture is given by the inspiration of God. He(God) wrote,telling us not to add or take away from his word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/3/2 15:22 Where are all of the greek scholars at on this question? It seems that that there is something with the languange what w ould make different translators traslate it so differently. Are they from different texts? Re: - posted by Graftedbranc, on: 2006/3/2 15:38 Quote: -------------------------1. It is not in the nature of the scriptures to address a local issue resricticted to a limited time/culture. -------------------------
Paul instructed Philemon conserning Onisimus who was a run away slave. The situation was cultural and political, the a pplication in principle was timeless. Meat sacraficed to Idols was a cultural and religious question of the times. We don't usually encounter it today. But the p rinciple of not putting a stumbling block before someone "weak in faith" is timeless. Head coverings are related to a practice in the culture, A woman who uncovered dishonered her husband as was consid ered a "wanton woman" in that culture. The situation was cultural, the principle is timeless. That is again, don't, because of your liberty, put a stumbling block before others."
Page 4/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
To take a principle and make a legal requirement is to forsake the essense of the New Testament, to forsake Christ, His redemption and the indwelling Spirit to take up a religious practice. If there are pictures historically of women with head coverings, there are also nuns and monks with monk robes in churc h history. We don't derive doctrine and practice from historical religious observances. IN fact, it is always religion and tra dition which are most opposed to the genuine work of the Spirit in any generation. It was religion and tradition that crucifi ed the Lord Jesus and in every generation, it is those who cleave to tradition which oppose the move of the Spirit in gen uine revival and renewal. If women feel that they should were a little lace thingy on their head or a clip or some other "sign of submission" then the y should do so. Or maybe their men who would demand this should put a collar with dog tags around their neck. But if they want to take the biblical pattern they should follow the women in Iraq and veil. They should cover themselves totally.
Graftedbranch
Re: - posted by ravin, on: 2006/3/2 17:37 "But if they want to take the biblical pattern they should follow the women in Iraq and veil. They should cover themselves totally."
Graftedbranch //////////////////////////////////////////////////
Would you rather be foolish in mans sight. man can reason his way out of most things, take the garden,well he did(God) In his wisdom God wants to know will we follow him. We make a big show of Bible in hand going to church and for some it is the only time the Bible is handled all week. "If ye love me keep my commandments" "Be ye not hears of the word only but doers" Gods way is not mans way, his thinking is far above what we have now. his foolishness is far wiser then mans wisdom. t alk your way out of God s way and you will find yourself in a big crowed and on a wide road. many are called but few are choosen, better to find yourself on the narrow path. when we give ourselves to God its not lets make a deal. he wants our will to be his will. Jesus said I do only what I see my father doing. wise men came to Jesus long ago and they still do today. be ye doers of the word and not hearers only.
Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/3 1:06 It is difficult to jump in here to counter a number of issues this post has generated. I could not log on this morning and w as gone the rest of the day....I would like to respond to a few points made about this issue of women wearing a head cov ering and whether it is Biblical. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is the basis for this discussion. This scripture reminds the reader of some fundamental doctrines: 1. Headship: God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of every man; man is the head of a woman. 2. Praying. Both men and women pray. 3. Angels are keen observers of men and women praying.
Page 5/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
4. No man is an island: we all come from another, all are interrelated: v. 11, 12 Now, with these fundamental principles operational, the scriptures clearly teach us what males and females should do to remind us of these fundamental facts of headship, prayer and angels. Men are to have short hair because he is the imag e and glory of God (v.7). Women are to have their heads covered because she is the glory of man. Women are also to w ear a covering because of the angels. No more explanation is given here. We do know angels are ministering spirits who assist God in his work with people. Now godly females are to wear a covering because of the angels. (More on this later) . If we refuse to accept the literal application of a head covering for the females, we will also have to discard the principle of headship as demonstrated by God-Jesus-man –woman because they are so intricately interwoven. It is true this was not practiced in the OT; it is a NT practice and the early church fathers had a lot to say about this issue . Check out this site: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/HeadCovering.html Here is another one which deals more in depth with this issue: http://www.heritagemusic.org/brr/prayerveiling.shtml Now for some modern history: If you check the artwork of centuries past of Christian women, you will notice they wore a head covering: Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Anabaptists, Mennonites....Most of these groups have dro pped the application of wearing the covering because they did not deem it necessary. But what has happened to these c hurches as a result of it? Homes have broken up because of divorce. Immodesty is accommodated. Women compete wi th men in the marketplace and are no longer content to be mothers and keepers at home. Children are hauled off to the day care center to be raised by others. There has been a severe breakdown of the marriage relationship where divorce among 'Christians' is the same as their worldly neighbors. Immorality is common. Homosexuality is debated and accepte d. Now you will take me to task for making such a sweeping judgment of the apostasy of the Christian church. Before yo u rail on me for this, I urge you to go study history! Most of you are young enough to be my child, or me old enough to be your mom! I remember! This is exactly what has happened in the larger Mennonite church is the past 50 years! And the Mennonite church is just a little behind the rest of the well known church denominations. Excuse to not wear a covering: "I do not want to stand out like a sore thumb." I wrestled with this issue - big time! I did N OT WANT TO LOOK DIFFERENT! PERIOD!!!!! Then the Holy Spirit gently reminded me that "whosoever therefore will be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also the son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his father with the holy angels. Mk.8:38. This clinched the matter for me. I did NOT want Jesus to be ashamed of me! Will the refusal to wear a covering bar one from heaven? I do not know. I am not God: that is His job to determine this. We do know the Bible tells us that if we know to do good but do not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:17. The scriptures also specifically warn us against disobeying God and his word. That is what the entire scripture is about: How man sinned an d the remedy God offers to reconcile man to himself. Do people use the covering as a "good luck charm?" Yes, some do, but we cannot allow other peoples’ sin to interfere with our obedience. Blessings in obeying this scripture: wives are more content to be a stay-at-home mom, to mother their children; have su perior relationship with their husbands, marriages more stable, fewer divorces; have less fear for their own personal safe ty (I have never heard of a woman who wore a WHITE covering being criminally accosted by a man.) Does God grant woman special protection as a reward for their obedience to this scripture? The answer is a YES. If any of you disagree with me, let me assure you this is not something I dreamed up and decided to do and impose on a nyone else: it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write like he did. I have wrestled with this issue personally, and ha ve decided the disadvantages of wearing one pales into insignificance compared to Jesus dying on the cross. He did tha t for me and the least I can do is be willing to stand out in a crowd. And that does have its advantages: gives one many o pportunities to witness for HIM! Now THAT is FUN!!!:-) ginnyrose
Page 6/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
Re: - posted by ccchhhrrriiisss (), on: 2006/3/3 2:19 Hi ginnyrose...! I appreciate the honesty in which you approach this tradition. Modesty is greatly needed in the Church. I have been to meetings where girls wore much less clothes than they should. And I do believe that there is a "worldliness" in dress. It may not come from wearing a particular pair of jeans or shirts -- but it is a desire to be like the world. But as many people have pointed out, holiness cannot be measured. It is a condition that starts in the heart before it appears in a physical sense. As a young man, I also believe that long hair and nice, modest dresses are particularly attractive on young ladies (of course, not is a lustful sense). That being said, I still do not see any link between a lack of hats on women and the sinful practice of homosexuality in th e Church. Not only that, but I have a difficult time seeing the "covering" as mentioned in I Corinthians 11 as referring to any sort of covering besides hair. The "nature of things" does teach us that women were meant to wear long hair. Men are not me ant to wear long hair -- because it is against the natural order that God gave us. Verse 15 of I Corinthians chapter 11 te aches us that hair is the natural covering referred to in this passage. A hat is simply a man-made object. And there is in stances where men in the Old Testament actually prayed with a linen covering over their head -- quite the opposite of w hat many are interpreting this passage. There are many religions and religious sects or cults that require strict and "forced" obedience to certain standards of dr ess. Muslims, hindus, buddists, the amish and some other strict Christian sects still hold this tradition. Does such obedi ence make one holy? Of course not. If the heart is unclean -- outward signs of "holiness" are irrelevant. But I do not se e the wearing of a hat as a doctrine of the Church in the Bible. Again, the passage in I Corinthians 11 (as far as I can tel l) is referring to hair -- and not hats. Evidence that certain Christian sects may have practiced female hat-wearing (or veil-wearing) throughout history (regard less of whether accurate or inaccurate) is also irrelevant. Why? Because there are alot of such historic practices that w ere also widely accepted that are now seen as having been based upon extra-Biblical tradition. Have you ever wondere d why there are three different types of water baptisms practiced in Churches? I view this practice as such. I don't believe that wearing a veil makes a woman any more holy than a true believer that d oes not wear one. I also do not believe that such a practice of wearing a veil is needed for a woman to communicate wit h God. I believe that it is much more important to honor the concept that such symbolism represents rather than the act ual symbol itself. And as was stated earlier, it still seems like the entire passage refers to hair -- and not hats or veils. :-) Re: - posted by GaryE (), on: 2006/3/3 3:07
It seems to me that the word custom has a lot to do with what is acceptable or not. Also, the reason why someone does or doesn't do something like have a covering or not having a head covering or having short hair or not having short hair. Modesty in the culture that one is in goes along with custom and also the reason why or not the person does or doesn't do something. I've noticed that men's appearance over the centuries have varied widely. Many men of God had very long beards. Peo ple like Booth, Moody, Knox and others had very long beards. Men like John Owens, George Whitefield, John and Char les Wesley had long hair. They definitely did not have the clone look that many churches have today and yet the Lord u sed them in great ways. I wonder how many churches today would invite Charles Finney to preach at their towns. Where I live, many women have head coverings and wear long dresses. I think they look just fine but I also know that of ten within their denomination there is a legalistic and self-righteous air that isn't ok. Not all of them appear self-righteous though. It all goes back to why people do what they do or don't do what they do. A tradition doesn't make a person right eous.
Page 7/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
Once, I was witnessing to a man and he told me that his church teaches that if a man has a beard or a mustache, he is i n sin. They call it shamefacedness. I know that in Pennsylvania there are Amish that think if you have a mustache that i s worldly. This is all self-righteous rubbish. It's no different than the leaven that Jesus warned us of from the Pharisees. I heard that Hudson Taylor was used in a great way in China and that he took on the appearance of a China man. From what I heard he had a pigtail and when he came back to England and he was ridiculed by many for his appearance. Ag ain, it is the reason why you do or don't do something. God sees the heart. Years ago a woman church leader vocally attacked and accused me before the church for wearing blue jeans in that chu rch. She said because I was grown in the Lord I should know better. Thank God, the poison from that snake has had n o effect on me and to this day I where blue jeans where ever I go. When a person is where he or she should be, that person is concerned with what is going on inside of peoples hearts, n ot what they look like.
Re: - posted by HakkaMin (), on: 2006/3/3 3:38 You might want to read the article on Steve Gregg's website called "Headcoverings And Women." Just go to www.thenarrowpath.com and click on "Topical Articles" in the left menu. Here's a tiny excerpt that relates to your main question: "One of the more debatable points in the present passage is found in its closing verse (16), where Paul concludes, 'If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.' " Steve Gregg gives a pretty complete treatment of this topic. I'd encourage you check out the whole thing. Re: - posted by ccchhhrrriiisss (), on: 2006/3/3 3:49 Hello Hakkamin... Thank you for this link. I don't know much about this website, but it is always nice to hear or read some messages from others. But as far as the translation of the word, you may want to remember that some versions rely on different source texts. T he KJV relies on the Textus Receptus, while the NIV and NASB rely on other sources. Thus, the "greek word" in one so urce may not even be the same "greek word" in the other. :-) Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/3/3 11:28 Quote: ------------------------HakkaMin wrote: "One of the more debatable points in the present passage is found in its closing verse (16), where Paul concludes, 'If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.' " -------------------------
Thank you for the link. That was the type of approach I was looking for. I am still going to look around in the Greek, well
Page 8/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
.. atleast see what some others say about it. That verse seems to be important in understanding what Paul meant. Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/4 15:43 Brethren, I would like to make a few comments you made on your posts. Quote: That being said, I still do not see any link between a lack of hats on women and the sinful practice of homosexuality in the Church. Chris, if you will follow the deterioration of lifestyles in the church in general (in the past 150 years), you will notice this pr ogression. What happens is when a person decides a scriptural directive is irrelevant for today, that individual will move out away from GodÂ’s umbrella of protection, making him/her vulnerable to satanic attacks because he/she will have mo ved away from the protection of GodÂ’s ministering spirits, the angels. When the Mennonite church decided the head co vering was no longer applicable and then discarded it, immodesty became a bigger problem as well as immorality, shack ing up, divorce and remarriage and now homosexuality. These sins were not the norm as long as they acknowledged th e headship of God-Jesus-Male-Female by the wearing a head covering signifying this relationship. When you say this w as an ancient custom and therefore no longer applies to us moderns, would you say the headship principle is no longer active today as well? Chris, I have witnessed this progression in my lifetimeÂ…I am almost 59 years old. This has happened also in the popul ar churches of todayÂ…the Baptists, Presbyterians, et al. Quote: I've noticed that men's appearance over the centuries have varied widely. Many men of God had very long beards. Many males in times past wore beards and many of the old church fathers wrote articles taking males to task for shaving . There are churches today that will hold to similar ideas. The NT does not discuss this practice at all even though it was a requirement for the OT men.
QUOTE: When a person is where he or she should be, that person is concerned with what is going on inside of peopleÂ’s hearts , not what they look like. What a person does, how he/she dresses, their body language tell people whatÂ’s in their hearts. You cannot separate t he two. Having said that, there are those who will act like Christians, dress modestly but are rotten in their hearts, who d o not know Jesus, but have only a religion. Quote: Not only that, but I have a difficult time seeing the "covering" as mentioned in I Corinthians 11 as referring to any sort of covering besides hair. The "nature of things" does teach us that women were meant to wear long hair. Men are not m eant to wear long hair -- because it is against the natural order that God gave us. Verse 15 of I Corinthians chapter 11 t eaches us that hair is the natural covering referred to in this passage. A hat is simply a man-made object. This scripture is referring to two coverings for a female: the hair and another man made veil. If it would be only talking ab out hair, you will have to conclude men have to shave their heads! In v. 6 (For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. NASB) it says a woman should cover herself, indicating a covering that does not occur naturally like hair. Sirs, since you are not convinced from the scriptures of the necessity of women wearing a head covering, I will encourag e you to check out the web for testimonies of women who wear one, what blessing it has been for them. I know experien tial evidence is not valid to determine the biblical teaching of anything. However, life will prove doctrine, when it is somet hing that affects a lifestyle. For example, the scriptures tell us lying is sin. Is there not enough experiential evidence to pr ove it is destructive to human relationships? And here is another point: the color of the veiling makes a huge difference! Are you scandalized now for sure???!!!! Sirs, I would urge you to study this scripture carefully, ask God to teach you concerning this issue. He is a whole lot bett er teacher then I or anyone else can ever be.
Page 9/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
Blessings, ginnyrose
Re: No Custom? Or No Argument? - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/3/6 10:14 NLT But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. So everyone who thinks that a covering is not applicable today thinks the above is a bad translation and the below is the correct? NASB But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. Re: Veil - posted by danfrey, on: 2006/3/6 18:18 Just one quick addition. Anyone who thinks this was just a Corinthian culture thing should read Tertullians "On the veilin g of virgins" He discusses the different types of veils worn in many different regions. It is clear from the early church wri tings that they accepted Pauls writings to say that a woman should veil during prayer and prophesy. There was no such custom as being contentious about the headcover. There are multiple writings from those that spoke the language of sc ripture. The Christians of the first couple of centuries were more willing to buck culture than we are. As Leonard Ravenhill said, “When there’s something in the Bible that churches don’t like, they call it ‘legalism.’” Re:, on: 2006/3/6 18:30 Here we have the case of what we all talked about last night .... picking our battles or picking our threads and on this iss ue, I pray this is not a point to press too hard on.
Just my thought. :smart: Re:, on: 2006/3/6 18:56 Oops, I pushed submit before I had intended here. It's not a question of knowing the Greek in the case of 1 Corth 11 as it is to not pull a verse out of the context of a Chapter or book. Especially with this particular chapter we're dealing with ... it MUST be read in it's entirety. The two verses that precede the one in question read ... 1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Paul here is talking about hair length for both men and woman and Robertson's says on the notes for 11:5 just for one ... 1Co 11:5 With her head unveiled (akatakaluptōi tēi kephalēi). Associative instrumental case of manner and the predicative adjective (compound adjective and feminine form same as masculine), “with the head unveiled.” Probably some of the women had violated this custom. “Amongst Greeks only the hetairai, so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head - also a punishment of the adulteress” (Findlay). Cf. Num_5:18. One and the same thing as if she were shaven (hen kai to auto tēi exurēmenēi). Literally, “One and the same thing with the one shaven” (associative instrumental case again, Robertson, Grammar, p. 530). Perfect passive articular participle of the verb xuraō, later form for the old xureō. It is public praying and prophesying that the Apostle here has in mind. He does not here condemn the act, but the breach of custom which would bring reproach. A woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn (Isa_7:20). The Justinian code prescribed
Page 10/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
shaving the head for an adulteress whom the husband refused to receive after two years. Paul does not tell Corinthian Christian women to put themselves on a level with courtesans.
So, we can't pick and choose which verses out of a chapter we run with because the main problem with the Church at C orinth was their "lack of unity". As Paul goes on from the verses above to ... 1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse . 1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly be lieve it. 1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among yo u.1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. ETC. And from these, onto Communion, where they were not "considering one another or The Body" and many were sick and dying because they did not consider "The Body" which should be well connected to The Head and is how it ties in with th e Man being over/covering the Woman from earlier in the chpt. Watchman Nee, just for one, did a fantastic teaching on "Considering The Body". That unless we respect "HIS" Body ... then we are in danger of those things Paul warns of in the Communion verses. Unity on the Essentials - Tolerance on the Non-Essentials. But if this head covering issue becomes an Essential in The Body - then we've lost our unity and that would break the he art of God. Please keep in mind, that Paul was having MANY issues to deal with, with this particular Church and to explain the Com munion he goes about it in a round about fashion at first. Look to see within the whole of Corinthians, just how many "issues" he had to contend with them over. They were a tou gh crowd. Too much "mercy" to begin with in Chapter 5 .... the abuse of the gifts from 12 to 14 ... with their lack of love sandwiched between those and so on. So to "split hairs" (no pun intended) we may just as soon go into men with long hair now - how long is too long and how short is too short ... and I pray that too does not become an issue here but more of what Paul continues on to say in Chp t. 11 about the Unity of The Body. God Bless. Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/7 22:41 Are we discussing opinions or Biblical directives? Makes a huge difference....Opinions are always debatable...Biblical dir ectives/principles are not. ginnyrose Re: - posted by ccchhhrrriiisss (), on: 2006/3/8 1:35 Hi ginnyrose...! Quote: -------------------------Are we discussing opinions or Biblical directives? Makes a huge difference....Opinions are always debatable...Biblical directives/prin ciples are not. -------------------------
I suppose the issue is something that you consider to be a "Biblical principle." I disagree. I feel that it is unwise to build a religious tradition on the passage of a single reference -- one that is particularly unclear. It is safe to say that there are many other such "Biblical directives/principles" that are not followed -- even by women wh
Page 11/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
o cover their hair with a scarf, hat or veil. In fact, there are a couple that refer to the inability of women to "teach men." However, I have found that some women have been wonderful examples and teachers on this message board. It is very important to get to the "root" of each issue of the Law (Matthew 5:17-42). While there is not a reference to enfo rced female head-covering in the Old Testament -- it does appear that this practice is almost establishing a "new Law" -one that is not based upon the principles of Acts 15:19-21 or Matthew 22:36-40. Is it possible that forcing women to wear man-made head scarves, hats or veils might be a tradition of men (including we ll-meaning and godly men)? :-) p.s. - I am still studying this, but I am quite convinced that the "covering" mentioned in I Corinthians is speaking of hair a nd not a man-made hat. Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/12 9:43 Sir, I have been thinking of your posts for the past several days, and wondering how the LORD would have me respond to it. I have been very busy as well which does give me time to think. (We grow tomatoes hydroponically). Perhaps it might be helpful to consider Bible history as it pertains to women. I do not have the time to include references but knowing you are not ignorant of the scriptures, you can go check it out yourself…I will try to be as simple as I can. When God made Adam and Eve he said, “Let us make man in our image.” Notice the plurity of ‘us’ and ‘our’. S o Adam and Eve were made n the image of God. Many think the godhead is asexual in contrast to humans. Man had to be created sexual so you could have a reproduction of the species. Woman was made to be a helper to Adam, to functio n as the godhead does. If you want to understand how men and women should relate to each other, just study the intera ctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That will tell you more in short order then anything else will. When the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, Eve was the one that caved in to the temptation – Gen. 3: 6 tells us Adam was with her. Now Eve was in trouble…they were both banned from the Garden. Eve should have consulted with Ada m, instead she took it upon herself to do what her ‘lusts’ propelled her to do, although she was not aware at the mom ent that is what it was. Fast forward to the OT law. There are numerous laws directed towards women in which she would be unclean. Being un clean means that person’s work will be severely restricted as well as her social life. If you study this concept of being ‘ unclean’ one can so easily see the wisdom of God. He dictated it so to protect mankind from infections, diseases, and i t promotes general health. Simply spoken it was very sanitary. Women were unclean after the birth of a child, during te time of her menstrual flow AND some days after as well. In Eze kiel the husbands must have violated this law because God had some severe words for the men who violated it –havin g sex with their wives during that time of her ‘uncleanness’. This was to protect her from diseases. The social structure in the OT was patriarchal. This is very clearly seen and understood when one studies OT history. Women, were active, were useful in the society they were in. They could inherit land; Job gave his daughters equal inher itance with his sons. There was prophetess, ministering to the people. Deborah was one who was highly esteemed…re ad her story. And make sure you notice how she related to males...this will be very important. For what I will say later. C onsider Esther. She was a foreigner, living in exile and notice how she related to her uncle...study that relationship –thi s will be very important. Now consider the queen of all that can be wrong with women: Jezebel. She told her husband where he had to get on an d off. Contrast her with Deborah, Esther, and Huldah. Miriam had a problem and God did set her in place… In the book of Joel, he tells us that in the last days your sons, daughters shall dream dreams, have visions, prophecy. O n the day of Pentecost, Peter tells the crowd that this prophecy is today fulfilled. As we study the book of Acts, we once again see how females operated under the NEW COVENANT. They prophesied, they clothed the naked, they rendered material assistance. In Romans, Paul, the alleged woman hater, told the Roman church to render assistance to the wom en that asks for it.
Page 12/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
When Jesus appeared on the scene the status of women had fallen to a new low which mirrored the one reflected by pa gan cultures into which they were thrust when they were carried away to exile. They were considered to have less value then a dog. (I conferred with Alvin Schmidt about this. He wrote “Under the Influence, How Christianity Transformed Ci vilization”). Now when Jesus talked with females, he was treating them as an equal human worthy of dignity and honor, people who were capable of understanding deep spiritual truths. This was very much in contrast to the prevailing culture.
Now Jesus changed this and woman was liberated, but having been liberated, they still must realize they are living in a p aternal headed society. The New Covenant did not alter this. So now you had Paul telling the women to be silent in chur ch or to not usurp authority over the man. I think these verses need to be understood in the context why God created fe males and how they are to relate to males or their husbands, first of all. Study the holy women of old; see how they fitted into the picture! This is the way God wants females to function! Having been liberated females think they can operate lik e Jezebel! They tell men where they need to get off and on. Now the question arises: how should females relate to male s? It will differ on the status of the male: is he my son, my husband, a brother, a friend or are we in a worship service? If it is my child, he better does want mom says! Considering we are talking about adult relationships the manner how a fe male relates is the issue. It is one of deferment: how do you think? How should it be done? What is your suggestion? Thi s is the submissive mentality the Bible teaches from Genesis to 1 Corinthians. Now to function in this manner, the woma n will need to have a sign on her head to tell others, the angels that this is her modus operandi! In doing so she will have authority on her head! Not one that oppresses but one that operates with others well-being in mind, not feeding her own pride. (As for the verse where women are to be silent in the church, the writer tells us if they have questions to ask their husba nd at home. Historians tell us what was happening was at worship services the men and women were separated in their seating and sometimes they could not hear what was being said, hence the command.) Now, what thinkest thou? ginnyrose
Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/3/13 10:15 I do not mean to be condemning, nor am I trying to prove a point. I am just very curious. Ginnyrose, Do you keep silent in the church? The reason I ask is that if you do not, then it seems you are using history to advocate your rebellion in this. Isn't that the same thing that the ones who don't ware a headcovering are doing? Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/14 1:42 PreachParsley, You asked a fair question...but before I can answer you must study the scripure as a whole. And that is why Biblical hist ory is so very important lest one goes to extremes. (BTW: why do you think God included history in his book?) You study the book of Acts, Romans 16 and notice how the women functioned in the churches. They were submissive, n ot absolute silent. They were serving others. They were not in church leadership like elders, bishops. They functioned as deaconess besides just plain helping others. In our church the women are not in church leadership as pertains to the church government. Nor are we behind the pulpi t. There are times when the women are invited and expected to participate and that we do: singing, sharing of testimonie s, prayer requests...this is the public meeting. We are also expected to participate in the teaching program but never fun ction as teachers of a mixed group where adult men are in the class. But what about activities outside the church? There are many opportunities to serve the LORD, and that we do wheneve r the LORD brings them our way. You must also realize that when you have a Titus 2 woman, she will be busy with her f
Page 13/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
amily and will not have much time for leisure...and yes, she is also a possesor of the gifts of the Spirit and is expected to use them when the opportunities present themselves. Think I am in rebellion? Sir, I could easily join another church where the headcovering is discouraged but I see absolutely nothing there that wou ld attract me to it. I have worked with the best, the most spiritual women in popular churches...meaning Charismatic, Ass embly of God, Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian. 'nuf said for now on that subject. I serve our brotherhood in tasks they ask me to. I will not run over anyone or tell them where they need to get on and off. My goal is to be a servant that serves her LORD by helping others. Presently my tasks involve being the head of the foo d committee, and compiling the church bulletin which means I answer to our pastor. Having said all I did, males must realize they have no right to manipulate, nor abuse females, especially in the husband/ wife relationship. In I Peter 3:7 the writer tells us how the husband is to regard his wife and if he fails, his prayers will be hindered! Now think about that a while! If a husband will mistreat his wife, she will pray and God will go to bat for her and make life difficult for that man! Therefore, it is in the husbands' best interest to submit to his head and take his orders fro m Him! When a husband is following the LORD in obedience and humility, I can promise you that a Christian lady will ha ve little problem submitting to a husband like that! Too many males are more interested in power and control which irks women and then they will retaliate... BTW, where do you think I get the idea a woman should wear a head covering? and for what reason? Still think I am in rebellion? ginnyrose
Re: On Women being 'silent' in church - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/15 22:15 I just found this article that discusses women being silent in the church. You may find it enlightning: http://www.mybiblebase.com/modules/articles/viewarticle_2.html This is Ron Bailey's website. ginnyrose Re:, on: 2006/3/15 22:33 Where is brother Ron anyways ? Does his fellowship require the woman to wear headcoverings I wonder ?
Ginnyrose, I have never ever seen you post such long posts. Didn't think ya had it in ya to go for such long ones ;-) .
Love, Annie
Page 14/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
Re: - posted by GaryE (), on: 2006/3/15 23:45
1Ti 5:1 Rebuke1969 not3361 an elder,4245 but235 entreat3870 him as5613 a father;3962 and the younger men3501 a s5613 brethren;80 1Ti 5:2 The elder women4245 as5613 mothers;3384 the younger3501 as5613 sisters,79 with1722 all3956 purity.47 The description for the Greek word that decribes elder and elder woman is the same. They are different words, however , the descripton is the same.
Re:, on: 2006/3/16 0:02 Gary, as long as I've been on Forums, I've never seen anyone pay attention to that verse. I for one have young folks rebuking me all the time. :-? And ya know what ... it doesn't bother me if a thirteen year old rebukes me on a forum, though I'm old enough to be his g ranny. Do you think it would change if we all had to post our ages by our names ? ha. Re: - posted by GaryE (), on: 2006/3/16 1:59
Annie, I'm not telling my age just yet, but I remember when some elementary teachers in public school had a bible on th e corner of their desks. In second grade I learned Christmas carols like Joy to the World, Silent Night, etc. We also san g songs like the Battle Hymn of the Republic, America the Beautiful, Amazing Grace, etc in music class. The days starte d out with the Lord's Prayer and the Pledge of Allegeance with the words {One nation under God} in the pledge. There was also bible reading in first and second grade. That was probably a teacher's choice whether to read the bible or not. In those days at home, I remember trying to find cartoons on Sunday mornings and all that was on was Christian progra ms. It was my surprise a few years ago when I met a couple about 18 years old from two different areas in central Pennsylva nia that neither one had ever heard the Gospel at all. Now I realize that there are many young people who have not eve r clearly heard why Jesus died for them. Today, if you are from an un-churched family, you may never hear the things th at you could not escape hearing from somewhere or somebody when I was a child.
Re:, on: 2006/3/16 2:27 Yes, that's how it was with school back when for me too. But we didn't get the Gospel on TV because my grandparents didn't watch it till later in the day, so I didn't hear the gosp el till I moved to Virginia in the military. But I remember how we started the day at school, by reading the Bible passage of our choice and I always like Psalm 23 . My family was Catholic and in N.J. I never heard the Gospel. After I got saved though and moved back there for a little while, I did find a good Church though. They say that the U.S. is number 3 on the list of needing Missionaries. So I believe what you've said there. That's why I think the Lord allows this means of communicating. I just got to witness on a secular forum for sick folks. I may be disabled, but I can still type ... Ha, to the devil. Secular Forums are a great "open air" outlet. :-D
Page 15/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
God Bless ya brother. Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/16 9:09 Annie, You just have not read 'em all! lol I prefer to keep them short, thinking people will not read real long ones in its entirelty.:o And I do not enjoy debates, either. I love discussions, but not debates...and will refrain from it as much as possible. Is t hat OK? ginnyrose
Re: - posted by ginnyrose (), on: 2006/3/16 9:14 Gary, You do not have to say your age..I'll bet we could guess it! lol And you are at least middle age... :-D BTW, there are a lot of us there.... ginnyrose
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/3/16 11:11 Quote: -------------------------Where is brother Ron anyways ? Does his fellowship require the woman to wear headcoverings I wonder ? -------------------------
The church that I am part of has no 'requirements' of this kind but many of the sisters cover their heads and all the men uncover their heads. ;-) BTW we have looked at this topic in the past. Please take a look at (http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmodeflat&order0&topic_id4351&forum35&post_id&refr eshGo) Headcovering Q Re: - posted by GaryE (), on: 2006/3/16 12:06 {Quote} Annie They say that the U.S. is number 3 on the list of needing Missionaries. So I believe what you've said there. That's why I t hink the Lord allows this means of communicating. I just got to witness on a secular forum for sick folks. I may be disabled, but I can still type ... Ha, to the devil. ................................................. There is a Leukemia and Lymphoma forum that I sometimes post to. It is a very good place to witness and quote a vers e in.
Page 16/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
Re: - posted by GaryE (), on: 2006/3/16 12:22
{Quote} Ginneyrose And you are at least middle age... ................................................. At least, I'm not sure where old age begins but God has blessed my appearance to look younger than I am. I used to sa y I was 29 plus. A friend of mine, who is over 80 and a full time missionary in the trucking industry, keeps saying God doesn't see old ag e. Moses might say life begins at 80 and Caleb would wanted that mountain at that age. We can obviously have vision at any age and no matter what our physical strength, we can walk in a spiritual strength and do battle. Also, prayer does n't stop at any age or physical limit.
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/3/16 13:22 Part of the background to the interpretation of this verse is the whole context of 1 Corinthians. Those who see it in the local geographical and time context argue for the practice of men to uncover their heads and women to cover theirs as being due to the manner of life in Corinth in the 1st century. I would argue for a wider context. “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:” (1Cor 1:2 KJVS)This opening statement makes it very clear that Paul had much more than the local Corinthian assembly in mind when he wrote. This is not actually 'the letter to the Corinthians'; it is the 'letter to the Corinthians and all, who in every place, call upon the name... That is, this letter always had a wider audience in the Spirit's intentions. Another interesting verse is “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1Cor 14:37 KJVS) Please notice that it is not the 'one thing' that Paul claims are the commandments of the Lord but "all the things that I write unto you". This letter was written, partl y, in answer to a letter received by Paul from Corinth:“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good f or a man not to touch a woman.” (1Cor 7:1 KJVS) and at several points during the next part of the letter Paul used the Greek preposition 'peri' which in this context means 'concerning' or 'with reference to'. 1Cor 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1,12. Our ref erence to 'Coverings' in right at the centre of this. He begins in...“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered the m to you.” (1Cor 11:2 ASV)... by commending them for keeping the 'traditions' ie the deposit of truth that he has commi tted to them. He claims, in “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus th e same night in which he was betrayed took bread:” (1Cor 11:23 KJVS)These are not locally developed traditions but tr aditions which Paul 'received' from the Lord and 'handed on' to the church at Corinth. The church at Corinth is not 'a on e-off' but is part of the pattern which Paul 'handed on' to all. Having commended them for "holding onto' the traditions (1 Cor 11:2) Paul immediately introduces the issue of the relati onship between male and female and the differences in responsibility between the two. It is not difficult to follow his trai n of thought. He moves between 'headship' and the 'uncovered head' of the man and then onto the covered head of the woman. There are some difficulties in honest interpretation caused by the fact that the Greek language does not have a word for 'husband' or 'wife' but uses the idiom 'her man' or 'his woman'. He says that the man ought not to cover his hea d and that the woman ought to have 'authority on her head because of the angels'. The verse in question... “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God .” (1Cor 11:16 KJVS)... is admittedly a difficult on. It is an a level with Paul's comment to the Thessalonians “Remem ber ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?”(2Th 2:5 KJVS) The difference between ourselves a nd the Corinthians is that for them 1 Corinthians was an 'addition' to what Paul had already taught them, whereas for us
Page 17/18
Scriptures and Doctrine :: No Custom? Or No Argument?
we have to try to work out what kind of questions Paul is answering. Can we create a scenario? Paul refers to some who might be 'quarrelsome' (contentious). There were some who were apparently not happy with th e custom that was already established in the church at Corinth. At this point I would have to disagree with the Charity Mi nistry position and that of Watchman Nee. Their line seems to be that this is a general truth and that women ought, AT ALL TIMES, to have their head covered. I do not think the evidence supports this. The context is not the local market pl ace but a meeting in which prayer and prophecy are manifested; ie the church meeting. This has relevance to the 'local custom' issue because it was not local custom for Greek women to cover their heads in worship, nor was it custom for th e men to do so. Corinth was a Roman city and Roman men did cover their heads in worship although not always the wo men. There were no doubt those from a Jewish background in the meeting too. The Jews had strict rules and biblical c ommandment that when in closest proximity to God the head must be covered. So we have some interesting people in t he meeting... 1. some believed that the men ought to cover their head but not necessarily the women - Romans 2. some believed that neither men nor women ought to cover their heads - Greeks 3 some believed that both men and women should cover their heads in approach to God. - Jews Paul, and the early church, were usually very sensitive about the Jewish conscience. It must have been of some signific ance for Paul to 'ban' the Jews in the meeting from covering their heads. It was most likely to cause offense to their con science. If it were not important it is most unlikely that Paul would have made these statements. The Corinthians have exhibited an independent spirit in their self-centred spiritual exercises and, I would suggest, some one has suggested that there is no need for the women to cover their heads. Paul's answer is to that suggestion. It is n ot arbitrary but is part of the pattern of Paul's teaching in local churches. “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.” (1Cor 7:17 KJVS) See here too how c onscious Paul is of the other churches while writing to Corinth. We can see this 'churches-consciousness' at several poi nts in 1 Corinthians 1Cor. 7:17 (KJVS) But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so l et him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 1Cor. 11:16 (KJVS) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 1Cor. 14:33 (KJVS) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1Cor. 14:34 (KJVS) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1Cor. 16:1 (KJVS) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even s o do ye. 1Cor. 16:19 (KJVS) The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church th at is in their house. It seems very likely that in their personal estimation and in their estimation of the state of their own 'c hurch' the church at Corinth was independent and considered themselves to be somewhat superior to other churches. I think this context provides the best-fit hypothesis for Paul's injunction that 'all the churches have no other custom'. WKIP
Page 18/18
