Mark Johnston Drops from UPCI, Garner Next???

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

LOL you guys are still contending for a point that was simply an illustration!

That's not even the primary issue in Corinth (cut hair). The issue had to do with a custom during times of worship specifically.

I agree. But the details must be explained in proper context.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. But it does not mean to merely trim as though it was down her back and she trimmed off an inch.

ROBERTSON:
1Co 11:6
Let her also be shorn (kai keirasthō). Aorist middle imperative of keirō, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close.

JOHNSON
For if the woman be not covered. If she defies decorum by an uncovered head, let her go further, and be shaven.

JFB
1Co 11:6
A woman would not like to be “shorn” or (what is worse) “shaven”; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, “shorn.”

HENRY
She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. ...

III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, 1Co_11:4, 1Co_11:5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,

I don't know how relevant this truly is, but it was brought to my attention that the Jews typically covered their heads while in prayer and gathered to study Torah. I was once told that it would be a shame for Christian men to pray to God with their heads covered because it would demonstrate that they were still under the Law... hense a denial of the New Covenant. By doing this, they dishonored their "head" (Jesus Christ).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't know how relevant this truly is, but it was brought to my attention that the Jews typically covered their heads while in prayer and gathered to study Torah. I was once told that it would be a shame for Christian men to pray to God with their heads covered because it would demonstrate that they were still under the Law... hense a denial of the New Covenant. By doing this, they dishonored their "head" (Jesus Christ).

Interesting. I was also told that the prayer caps were in mourning over the temple destruction which would also make a Christian man's adorning of one to be inappropriate since it would imply Christ was not the last sacrifice. Not sure how true that is.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't know how relevant this truly is, but it was brought to my attention that the Jews typically covered their heads while in prayer and gathered to study Torah. I was once told that it would be a shame for Christian men to pray to God with their heads covered because it would demonstrate that they were still under the Law... hense a denial of the New Covenant. By doing this, they dishonored their "head" (Jesus Christ).

Originally Posted by mfblume

Interesting. I was also told that the prayer caps were in mourning over the temple destruction which would also make a Christian man's adorning of one to be inappropriate since it would imply Christ was not the last sacrifice. Not sure how true that is.

Well, cannot speak for the Jewish significances, but in my culture, a man shows respect to a person held in high regards by removing his hat. So 1 Cor 11 does not pose any issues in churches in our culture. Men take off hats during prayer as a respect to God and women put on scarfs during prayer. (Culture in Nigeria anyways...)

[mfblume]

Question 11.1.2: Dress: Why do many Jewish men wear head coverings (variously referred to as "yarmulkas," "skullcaps," and "kipot")?


Answer:

The customary Jewish head covering (for simplicity, we'll call it a
kipa (singular of kipot), although all the terms refer to
approximately the same thing) is a sign of humility for men,
acknowledging what's "above" us (G-d). An additional explanation is
that in ancient Rome, servants were required to cover their heads
while free men did not; thus, Jews covered their heads to show that
they were servants of G-d. It's necessary for men to cover their heads
during certain prayers (whether it be by a kipa or another
headcovering), and for one making blessings all day, it's inconvenient
to keep donning and removing a kipa. In some places, the type of kipa
and way of wearing it expresses affiliation with a particular yeshiva
or political viewpoint. In other places, it doesn't really matter.

Many Ashkenazi rabbis acknowledge that wearing a head covering at all
times was once considered an optional "midat chasidut" [pious act] but
that nowadays, full-time head covering is the norm except under
extenuating circumstances.

Sephardic communities generally did not have the custom of wearing a
kipa all the time.

Some diaspora Jews leave off the kipa at school, work, or when
testifying in court, because of real danger or uneasiness in appearing
in the secular world with an obvious symbol of Jewishness.

Many non-Orthodox Jews (and some modern Orthodox Jews) do not always
wear a kipa. This is because some sources make covering the head by a
Jewish male a special practice of the pious (midat chasidut). However,
these movements do recognize that it is a Jewish way of showing
reference and respect, as well as a positive means of identification
(which can serve as a barrier against assimilation). Some movements
have specific recommendations as to the time that a kipa is worn; for
example, Conservative practice is to cover the head in the following
situations:
* Whenever in the sanctuary of a synagogue.
* When praying and when studying or reading from sacred literature.
* Whenever performing any ritual.
* When eating, since eating is always followed by a benediction.
Some follow the minhag of certain Jewish communities in Germany
where they cover their heads during the blessing before the meal
and during the benedictions after the meal, but not during the
meal itself.

In Israel wearing a kipa also has a social significance. While wearing
a kipa shows that you are somewhat religious, not-wearing one is like
stating "I'm not religious". The style of kipa in Israel can also
indicate political and religious affiliations.

The wearing of the kipah at school and work has increased in recent
years. These are also affectionately called "beanies," "holy
headgear," "Yamahas," "Yid-lids," and "Kapeles." (Similarly, some hair
coverings for married women are affectionately called "shmattehs.")

[mfblume]

FROM http://en.allexperts.com/q/Conservat...ing-Yamaka.htm

QUESTION: Can you tell me when the Jewish men first began the wearing of the Yamaka. In studying the Old Testament scriptures I can find no reference of men wearing hats of any kind. I appreciate any information you may have on this subject. In our Bible study this came up & I was requested to see what Information I could find.

Thank you for your assistance.

God Bless you,

Joyce Parnell




ANSWER:

Dear Joyce

Thanks for writing and it is a frequently asked question

The cut-to-the-chase answer is that it is a custom, and it developed after the custom of Babylonian scholars and leaders who covered their heads as a sign of humility, which also distinguished them from others as a "uniform." Because European Jewry generally followed Babylonian law and often custom, it became an Ashkenazi=European Jewry norm. How early did it begin? We do know that it was only a custom and for centuries we have learned that many Rabbinic opinions didn't consider it binding, but perhaps as early as the Talmudic period, post Second Temple destruction.

The new Encylcopedia Judaica edition 2007 includes the following information. I'm providing their entry below:

Best wishes

Rabbi Dov

HEAD, COVERING OF THE

Jewish tradition requires men to cover the head as a sign of humility before God, and women, as evidence of modesty before men, although the Bible does not explicitly command either men or women to cover the head.
Men

According to the description of the priestly garb in Exodus (28:4, 37, 40), the high priest wore a miter (miznefet), and the ordinary priests a hat (migba'at). It was generally considered a sign of mourning to cover the head and face (II Sam. 15:30, 19:5; Jer. 14:3–4; Esth. 6:12). In talmudic times, too, men expressed their sense of grief while mourning by covering their heads, as did *Bar Kappara after the death of *Judah ha-Nasi (TJ, Kil. 9:4, 32b; TJ, Ket. 12:3, 35a). A mourner, one on whom a ban (*herem) had been pronounced, and a leper, were, in fact, obliged to cover their heads (MK 15a), as was anyone who fasted in times of drought (Ta'an. 14b). These people had to muffle their heads and faces. It was considered an expression of awe before the Divine Presence to conceal the head and face, especially while praying or engaged in the study of mysticism (Hag. 14b; RH 17b; Ta'an. 20a). The headgear of scholars was an indication of their elevated position (Pes. 11b); some of them claimed that they never walked more than four cubits (about six feet) without a head covering (Shab. 118b; Kid. 31a; also Maim. Yad, De'ot 5:6, and Guide 3:52). The custom was, however, restricted to dignified personages; bachelors doing so were considered presumptuous (Kid. 29b). Artistic representation, such as Egyptian and Babylonian tablets or the synagogue at Dura Europos, generally depict Israelites, (and later Jews) without head covering. On the other hand, some rabbis believed that covering a child's head would ensure his piety and prevent his becoming a thief (Shab. 156b).

According to the Talmud (Ned. 30b), it was optional and a matter of custom for men to cover their heads. Palestinian custom, moreover, did not insist that the head be covered during the priestly benediction (see J. Mueller, Hilluf Minhagim she-bein Benei Bavel u-Venei Erez Yisrael (1878),39f., no. 42). French and Spanish rabbinical authorities during the Middle Ages followed this ruling, and regarded the covering of the head during prayer and the study of the Torah merely as a custom. Some of them prayed with a bare head themselves (Abraham b. Nathan of Lunel, Ha-Manhig (Berlin, 1855), 15b, no. 45; Or Zaru'a, Hilkhot Shabbat 43). Tractate Soferim (14:15), however, rules that a person who is improperly dressed and has no headgear may not act as the hazzan or as the reader of the Torah in the synagogue, and may not invoke the priestly benediction upon the congregation. Moreover, the covering of the head, as an expression of the "fear of God" (yirat shamayim), and as a continuation of the practice of the Babylonian scholars (Kid. 31a), was gradually endorsed by the Ashkenazi rabbis. Even they stated, however, that it was merely a worthy custom, and that there was no injunction against praying without a head cover (Maharshal,Page 507 | Top of Article Resp. no. 7; Be'ur ha-Gra to Sh. Ar., OH 8:2). The opinion of David Halevy of Ostrog (17th century) is an exception. He declared that since Christians generally pray bareheaded, the Jewish prohibition to do so was based on the biblical injunction not to imitate the heathen custom (*hukkat hagoi; Magen David to OH 8:2). Traditional Jewry came to equate bareheadedness with unseemly lightmindedness and frivolity (kallut rosh), and therefore forbids it (Maim. Yad, De'ot 5:6).

The covering of the head has become one of the most hotly debated points of controversy between Reform and Orthodox Jewry. The latter regards the covering of the head, both outside and inside the synagogue, as a sign of allegiance to Jewish tradition, and demands that at least a skullcap (Heb. kippah, Yid. yarmulka) be worn. Worship with covered heads is also the accepted rule in Conservative synagogues. In Reform congregations, however, it is optional.

[Meir Ydit]
Women

It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32).

In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6). Some rabbis compared the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts (Ber. 24a), and forbade the recitation of any blessing in the presence of a bareheaded woman (ibid.). The rabbis praised pious women such as Kimhit, the mother of several high priests, who took care not to uncover their hair even in the house (Yoma 47a; Lev. R. 20:11). Nevertheless, covering the head was a personal imposition and restriction from which men were glad to be exempt. According to Sotah 3:8, men differ from women in that they may appear in public "with hair unbound and in torn garments." In Eruvin 100b, one of the disadvantages or "curses" that is cited as an inevitable part of being female includes being "wrapped up like a mourner." Some aggadic sources interpret this custom as a sign of woman's shame and feeling of guilt for Eve's sin (Gen. R. 17:8; ARN2 9; Er. 100b and Rashi ad loc.; cf., also, the opinion of Paul in I Cor. 11:1–16). Girls did not have to cover their hair until the wedding ceremony (Ket. 2:1). It gradually became the accepted traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair (see Sh. Ar., EH 21:2).

In the early modern period the practice of a woman's shaving off all her hair upon marriage and covering her head with a kerchief (tichal) became widespread in Hungarian, Galician, and Ukrainian Jewish communities. Justifications for this stringency were to ensure that a married woman's hair would never be exposed and to eliminate the possibility of a woman's hair rising to the surface during her ritual immersion in the mikveh, rendering it invalid. Opponents argued that shaving the head would make a woman unattractive to her husband. Toward the end of the 18th century some circles of women began to wear a wig (shaytl). This "innovation" was opposed by certain Orthodox authorities such as Moses *Sofer (see A.J. Schlesinger, Lev ha-Ivri, 2 (19283), 109, 189) but continued to be widely practiced. In the early 21st century, a diverse range of customs connected with hair covering are followed by Orthodox Jewish women. Among some modern Orthodox women, there has been renewed interest in various modes of covering the hair after marriage. Many women who are not Orthodox continue the custom of covering their hair in synagogue.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

So the entire constituency of the UPC ministers under the age of 35 in now in the 300s and dropping?

Originally Posted by DAII

less than 5% ...

Where did you get these figures?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Please show bible for women REQUIRED to cover their faces. It is not in the bible.

I ran across this scripture today and thought of this thread.

KJV - Song of Solomon 4:1 "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

locks is defined as - tsammah: From an unused root meaning to fasten on; a veil:

So the passage would read: "Your eyes are like doves behind your veil."

The Bible certainly never says it is "required" for a woman to cover their faces (even though women certainly did).

But, neither does the Bible say it is "required" for a woman to wear a veil/vail either, (even though women certainly did).

I think it would be correct to say that Paul is appealing to "tradition" in I Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances/traditions, as I delivered them to you."

From what I have read, it was more of a necessity. During certain seasons, it was too dangerous to expose the head to the rays of sun in Palestine. That is probably how the veiling got started, out of necessity.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I ran across this scripture today and thought of this thread.

KJV - Song of Solomon 4:1 "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

locks is defined as - tsammah: From an unused root meaning to fasten on; a veil:

So the passage would read: "Your eyes are like doves behind your veil."

The Bible certainly never says it is "required" for a woman to cover their faces (even though women certainly did).

But, neither does the Bible say it is "required" for a woman to wear a veil/vail either, (even though women certainly did).

I think it would be correct to say that Paul is appealing to "tradition" in I Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances/traditions, as I delivered them to you."

From what I have read, it was more of a necessity. During certain seasons, it was too dangerous to expose the head to the rays of sun in Palestine. That is probably how the veiling got started, out of necessity.

Right. It was not "required" which was my point. It was a tradition that was not ordained of God. Hence, my thoughts on offense, as chapter 10 dealt with the same nature of things.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I ran across this scripture today and thought of this thread.

KJV - Song of Solomon 4:1 "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

locks is defined as - tsammah: From an unused root meaning to fasten on; a veil:

So the passage would read: "Your eyes are like doves behind your veil."

The Bible certainly never says it is "required" for a woman to cover their faces (even though women certainly did).

But, neither does the Bible say it is "required" for a woman to wear a veil/vail either, (even though women certainly did).

I think it would be correct to say that Paul is appealing to "tradition" in I Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances/traditions, as I delivered them to you."

From what I have read, it was more of a necessity. During certain seasons, it was too dangerous to expose the head to the rays of sun in Palestine. That is probably how the veiling got started, out of necessity.

ie, cultural.