1 Corinthians 11:15

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

A few rapid fire questions for now. Be back later to elucidate.
So then what is the covering? is it hair?, a veil?, the husband?

Paul is instructing Christian women to wear a headcovering when they pray or prophesy, and Christian men to not wear a headcovering when doing the same.

What about unmarried women? widows? etc? How are they covered in the divine order of things?

Unmarried women can certainly wear a headcovering.

What about the nazarite vow for women in the ot? She shaved her hair. Then women not cutting hair cannot be universal.

Years ago, either here, or on nFCF, or on FCF, we had an interesting discussion about this. Brother Bassett and I were discussing the Nazarites in particular and it's relation to Paul's statement that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him. I have no idea where that discussion is located, but it was very enlightening, imo. By having uncut hair, a Nazarite became a 'gazing stock' so to say. Similarly to when people wore sackcloth and ashes, it was out of the ordinary. By taking a Nazarite vow, a man devoted himself to God and became an 'aberration' of sorts compared to the surrounding society, thus picturing that being devoted to God meant being out of the ordinary, an outcast of sorts. I really wish I knew where that discussion was, it delved into Bible, history, culture, etc.

What would be wrong if these verses were about "customs"? Would God allow something for some and not for others based on customs?

1Co_11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul gave a teaching and an instruction about the proper way to do something. If anybody wanted to contend against his instruction, he had a final appeal, that neither him and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, had any such custom as would be contended for by the contentious one in opposition to Paul's teaching.

Jesus regularly opposed those who taught as doctrine the traditions and commandments of men. The apostolic churches followed Christ and His apostles. Christ led his apostles to teach, and their teachings were indeed the teachings of God. They laid down 'ordinances' or traditions that were to be followed, and which were independent of 'cultural customs' of the day, and which had the seal of God's approval. The Pharisees had their own traditions, but those traditions usually led people into ways to violate the written commandments of God. There is a Pharisaic halachah, and there is the halachah of Christ, delivered by his apostles.

Paul's instructions regarding headcovering during prayer and worship were contrary to the culture of the day. Among the Gentiles, some men and women both practiced covering, whereas some practiced uncovered prayer and worship. And some practiced a divided custom, where men and women had opposite practices (usually men being covered and women being uncovered). Jewish women were covered at all times anyway, and usually would not be allowed to offer prayer or to prophesy (sing?) in the synagogue. So again, Paul's teachings were contrary to EVERYBODY'S 'cultural customs'.

The church has it's own customs, it's own culture, that is often completely independent of any secular custom or culture of the day (or any day, for that matter).

1Co_11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.


2Th_3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There is such a thing as apostolic tradition, handed down by the apostles, recorded in the New Testament, that the churches of God are expected to follow.

[mizpeh]

This quote is from Jason Dulle on the FB post I spoke of earlier:

"Jason Dulle Jonathan, the Greek text literally says "no such custom," which is why I do not agree with translations that say "no other custom." Of course, they do so because if you say "no such custom" it seems to negate everything Paul just said, and we know that can't be his point. What we have to keep in mind is that Paul has been responding to specific questions posed to him by the Corinthians via a letter we don't have access to. All we are reading is his answers. We have to infer their questions based on Paul's answers. I take the statement "no such custom" to be Paul's summary statement directly answering the Corinthians' specific question. Apparently there was some practice in Corinth pertaining to hair that they wrote Paul about, and Paul is finishing his discussion on the matter by clearly stating that the church does not have the custom they wrote him about. The church's custom was the one he outlined instead."

I'm curious about your comments.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul is instructing Christian women to wear a headcovering when they pray or prophesy, and Christian men to not wear a headcovering when doing the same.

3 But I want you to understand that [a]Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of [b]Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head

Does "man is the head of a woman" mean "the husband is the head of the wife"? And for a wife to pray or prophesy without a covering on her head disgraces her head, which is her husband? If it doesn't mean this, then what does it mean? How would it apply to an unmarried woman?

Unmarried women can certainly wear a headcovering.

I'm unmarried. If I don't cover my head when I pray, how then will I disgrace my husband (which I don't have)?

Years ago, either here, or on nFCF, or on FCF, we had an interesting discussion about this. Brother Bassett and I were discussing the Nazarites in particular and it's relation to Paul's statement that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him. I have no idea where that discussion is located, but it was very enlightening, imo. By having uncut hair, a Nazarite became a 'gazing stock' so to say. Similarly to when people wore sackcloth and ashes, it was out of the ordinary. By taking a Nazarite vow, a man devoted himself to God and became an 'aberration' of sorts compared to the surrounding society, thus picturing that being devoted to God meant being out of the ordinary, an outcast of sorts. I really wish I knew where that discussion was, it delved into Bible, history, culture, etc.

But I'm more specifically asking about women who take a nazarite vow and are instructed to shave their head when the vow is complete. Numbers 6: 1-21 NASB

[B]When a man or woman makes a [a]special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to [c]dedicate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. 4 All the days of his [d]separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.5 ‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the Lord; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.

There were other men in the OT who did not cut there hair for months on end and it had nothing to do with a nazarite vow. I don't believe they had become "gazingstocks" because of their long hair.

2 Samuel 14:25 Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. 26 And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels[a] by the king's weight.

1Co_11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul gave a teaching and an instruction about the proper way to do something. If anybody wanted to contend against his instruction, he had a final appeal, that neither him and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, had any such custom as would be contended for by the contentious one in opposition to Paul's teaching.

Jesus regularly opposed those who taught as doctrine the traditions and commandments of men. The apostolic churches followed Christ and His apostles. Christ led his apostles to teach, and their teachings were indeed the teachings of God. They laid down 'ordinances' or traditions that were to be followed, and which were independent of 'cultural customs' of the day, and which had the seal of God's approval. The Pharisees had their own traditions, but those traditions usually led people into ways to violate the written commandments of God. There is a Pharisaic halachah, and there is the halachah of Christ, delivered by his apostles.

Paul's instructions regarding headcovering during prayer and worship were contrary to the culture of the day. Among the Gentiles, some men and women both practiced covering, whereas some practiced uncovered prayer and worship. And some practiced a divided custom, where men and women had opposite practices (usually men being covered and women being uncovered). Jewish women were covered at all times anyway, and usually would not be allowed to offer prayer or to prophesy (sing?) in the synagogue. So again, Paul's teachings were contrary to EVERYBODY'S 'cultural customs'.

The church has it's own customs, it's own culture, that is often completely independent of any secular custom or culture of the day (or any day, for that matter).

1Co_11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.


2Th_3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There is such a thing as apostolic tradition, handed down by the apostles, recorded in the New Testament, that the churches of God are expected to follow.

What do you mean by "church customs" specifically?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This quote is from Jason Dulle on the FB post I spoke of earlier:


I'm curious about your comments.

Dulle said essentially the same thing I said. Paul said 'we have no such custom'. What custom did Paul say the churches of God did NOT have? Whatever custom would be contended for by whoever was 'contentious', ie whatever custom would be proferred up in contention to what Paul was saying.

Paul taught something. Then, mentioned 'if any man be contentious'. The contentious man would be whoever would contend against what Paul taught. So Paul remarks that the churches of God have 'no such custom' in regard to anybody who wanted to be contentious.

Brother Dulle is correct when he says that Paul could not have been negating everything he himself just taught, as if he said 'Here's a bunch of teaching, but if you want to be contentious, the churches of God have no such custom as what I just taught.' That would, indeed, be ridiculous.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Does "man is the head of a woman" mean "the husband is the head of the wife"? And for a wife to pray or prophesy without a covering on her head disgraces her head, which is her husband? If it doesn't mean this, then what does it mean? How would it apply to an unmarried woman?

I'm unmarried. If I don't cover my head when I pray, how then will I disgrace my husband (which I don't have)?

The man is the head of the woman, and Christ is the head of the man. These terms are given by Paul in general statements. Obviously, they apply to married men and women, but they are the 'ideal' or the general, universal principle, and as such in themselves are independent of the marriage state of any particular person. When a woman prays or prophesies uncovered, she dishonours her head - this is taken by Paul in TWO senses. One is the abstract or metaphorical sense - the woman dishonours the man. But he also takes it in a literal sense, she dishonours her own actual physical head, otherwise his statement that 'for it is even all one as if she were shaven' would make no sense.

The reasons for covering are not limited to disgracing one's head. They also include the demonstration of the order of creation, as well as 'because of the angels', as well as a lesson from nature itself. Neither the order of creation, the angels, nor the lesson from nature are dependent on one;s marriage state.

But I'm more specifically asking about women who take a nazarite vow and are instructed to shave their head when the vow is complete. Numbers 6: 1-21 NASB

If a woman took a Nazarite vow, at the end of the vow she was to shave her head, just as a man was to do.

There were other men in the OT who did not cut there hair for months on end and it had nothing to do with a nazarite vow. I don't believe they had become "gazingstocks" because of their long hair.

They weren't Nazarites. Long hair on a man was out of the ordinary, that is what I meant.

What do you mean by "church customs" specifically?

I mean, customs or traditions or ordinances or ways of doing things that were taught by the apostles. Those things are recorded in the New Testament for us.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul is instructing Christian women to wear a headcovering when they pray or prophesy, and Christian men to not wear a headcovering when doing the same.

Unmarried women can certainly wear a headcovering.

1Co_11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul gave a teaching and an instruction about the proper way to do something. If anybody wanted to contend against his instruction, he had a final appeal, that neither him and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, had any such custom as would be contended for by the contentious one in opposition to Paul's teaching.

1Co_11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.


2Th_3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There is such a thing as apostolic tradition, handed down by the apostles, recorded in the New Testament, that the churches of God are expected to follow.

If you are saying that Paul taught the Church NOT TO BE CONTENTIOUS,
then I agree.

I read that the "head covering" doctrine is what it is...regardless if anyone
else agrees with Paul's teaching.

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Paul wasted 16 verses for nothing. I wonder how many other 16 verses have no relevance today?

Paul also wrote 1 Corinthians 7:8! Relevant??

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Isn't it interesting no where in all the commandments in the law is there anything mentioned regarding women's hair needing to be uncut or even long?

"For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the
field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she
took a vail, and COVERED HERSELF."

At the moment of leaving her father's house, Rebecca was betrothed to Isaac.
When she learned that Isaac went out to meet them, she covered herself with
a vail (veil); that is, she put herself in submission to the one to whom she was
betrothed.

"He that has ears to hear..."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

"For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the
field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she
took a vail, and COVERED HERSELF."

At the moment of leaving her father's house, Rebecca was betrothed to Isaac.
When she learned that Isaac went out to meet them, she covered herself with
a vail (veil); that is, she put herself in submission to the one to whom she was
betrothed.

"He that has ears to hear..."

I think the point is there is no command in the old testament for anything about it. Just references to it as though it was an extrabiblical custom that people in the middle east all did.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think the point is there is no command in the old testament for anything about it. Just references to it as though it was an extrabiblical custom that people in the middle east all did.

Extrabiblica...: then why is it written in the Bible?