|
Post by Giller on May 1, 2019 0:47:15 GMT -5
1Co 11:2-16 (2) Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (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.
Now what I want to discuss, is this issue of of course what people say is the covering, and especially what people at Narrow ways says is the covering.
And also how people take the last phrase to mean.
Which says this:"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.".
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 1, 2019 7:40:54 GMT -5
I’m waiting to see how this discussion unfolds. I tend to be the one who dokei philoneikos in doctrinal debates around here, so I will let others have their say.
|
|
|
Post by Sister on May 1, 2019 8:21:47 GMT -5
1Co 11:2-16 (2) Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (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. Now what I want to discuss, is this issue of of course what people say is the covering, and especially what people at Narrow ways says is the covering. And also how people take the last phrase to mean. Which says this:"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.". Hi Giller
What it says to me is that women should only cover their heads when praying or prophesying. It doesn't mean that she has to cover her head at all times, but only in prayer, and when prophesying in front of others should she humble herself before the Lord. If not she might as well shave her head, for it is just as shameful.
With the last verse, if any man seem to be contentious.....like to cause an argument over this, or say otherwise.....ie she should be covered at all times, or not covered at all or lets make this a church law now and boot her out if she doesn't comply....."we don't really have a custom for this" ....meaning.....there was never a law given by God over this, .....but instead use your own judgment as stated in verse 13. Let your conscience be your guide. Do what is obviously right but don't quarrel and make an issue out of it.
A woman should be plain when she approaches the Lord, humble and not there to look beautiful, but to serve the Lord with the meekness of the spirit. This is the woman's choice, and whatever she sacrifices for the Lord, or doesn't, he sees if there is honour there without a law....a good conscience to do what is pleasing in his sight. Remember, only when praying or prophesying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 8:58:57 GMT -5
I don't have a lot of understanding of this topic.....but one thing is where it says to be covered "because of the angels" ......when that came to my attention is when I started to wear something on my head during my private devotions (haven't had a church to attend for years). I have been praying that God would work IN me what is pleasing to Him so that in obeying His word regarding head covering and general dressing, it is something that comes genuinely from faith and being changed in my inner man rather than just outward appearance and rules/law or the latest 'church trend'.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 1, 2019 9:33:50 GMT -5
I’m waiting to see how this discussion unfolds. I tend to be the one who dokei philoneikos in doctrinal debates around here, so I will let others have their say. Here is my first question in this topic, what does dokei philoneikos mean? I am kind of saying this in a kidding kind of way, but also, I really do not know what it means.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 1, 2019 9:36:38 GMT -5
I’m waiting to see how this discussion unfolds. I tend to be the one who dokei philoneikos in doctrinal debates around here, so I will let others have their say. Here is my first question in this topic, what does dokei philoneikos mean? I am kind of saying this in a kidding kind of way, but also, I really do not know what it means. Dokei philoneikos are the Greek words for “seems to be contentious.”
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 1, 2019 9:47:31 GMT -5
Well contentious is one of the words mentioned in our topic. 1Co 11:16 (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
|
|
|
Post by John on May 1, 2019 9:52:58 GMT -5
The head covering is a sign of submission, meaning that the woman is not in rebellion, but is submitted to her God given authority, which is her husband. If she is unmarried, it is Christ. Of course, Christ is above all. The main thing everyone seems to miss here is that the head covering is not a veil, but is long hair.
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
A veil is not necessary if a woman has long hair, unless she just wants to wear one. Also, a man with long hair is showing he is in rebellion against his authority, Jesus Christ. If someone wants to be contentious, this is not a sin issue where you will wind up in hell for it, but it is making a statement to the world and the angelic host as to whether you are in submission or rebellion. For the married woman, the angels see she is under the protection of her head.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 1, 2019 9:56:12 GMT -5
Well contentious is one of the words mentioned in our topic. 1Co 11:16 (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. That’s why I made my comment. You asked what we think Paul meant by that, so I quoted it.
|
|
|
Post by Sister on May 1, 2019 10:36:57 GMT -5
The head covering is a sign of submission, meaning that the woman is not in rebellion, but is submitted to her God given authority, which is her husband. If she is unmarried, it is Christ. Of course, Christ is above all. The main thing everyone seems to miss here is that the head covering is not a veil, but is long hair.
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
A veil is not necessary if a woman has long hair, unless she just wants to wear one. Also, a man with long hair is showing he is in rebellion against his authority, Jesus Christ. If someone wants to be contentious, this is not a sin issue where you will wind up in hell for it, but it is making a statement to the world and the angelic host as to whether you are in submission or rebellion. For the married woman, the angels see she is under the protection of her head.
(4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.(7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man I see it like this; V4 is obviously speaking about a cap, hat or piece of cloth. If a man covers his head he dishonours his head (not speaking about hair).
So the next verse goes along the same lines (V5). Usually a piece of cloth over the hair. If not, she might as well shave it, for it's just as shameful,....but don't shave it, so let her be covered....not with hair, but with a cloth. When she's not praying or prophesying, her covering is her hair and not the cloth. She's covered both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Sister on May 1, 2019 10:38:20 GMT -5
I don't have a lot of understanding of this topic.....but one thing is where it says to be covered "because of the angels" ......when that came to my attention is when I started to wear something on my head during my private devotions (haven't had a church to attend for years). I have been praying that God would work IN me what is pleasing to Him so that in obeying His word regarding head covering and general dressing, it is something that comes genuinely from faith and being changed in my inner man rather than just outward appearance and rules/law or the latest 'church trend'. Same. This thing about the angels really gets to me. I thought I understood it, but now I'm not sure. Why do you think that is?
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 1, 2019 12:16:43 GMT -5
I see it almost identical to Butero, but just a slite different.
And it talks about many things in these scriptures, but I find that 2 of the bigger issues, that Paul was addressing, is for one thing what the true covering was, and he was dealing with a custom issue.
There may have been some misunderstanding among some of the Corinthians, of what the true covering was, and there seemed to be a custom that was also produced.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 1, 2019 12:32:11 GMT -5
Here is the Greek word on custom:
(Strong's concordance)
(G4914 συνήθεια sunētheia soon-ay'-thi-ah
From a compound of G4862 and G2239; mutual habituation, that is, usage: - custom. Total KJV occurrences: 2)
I think the right word was used here which is custom.
Here is the word habituating, in the dictionary:
(Webster's dictionary)
(Habituating HABIT'UATING, ppr. Accustoming; making easy and familiar by practice.)
It refers to a type of familiar practice.
Now here is the definition of the word mutual:
(Webster's dictionary)
(MU'TUAL, a. [L. mutuus, from muto, to change.] Reciprocal; interchanged , each acting in return or correspondence to the other; given and received. )
Key words seem to be given and received.
It seemed that there is something in one of these Corinthian verses, that was some type of familiar practice, which was given and received, and of course was put into practice.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on May 1, 2019 12:35:45 GMT -5
.... And also how people take the last phrase to mean. Which says this:"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.". .... simple...... same as 200 years ago (apparently). Until part of the beginnings of the women's lib movement (the seeds planted and sprouted of rebellion against Scripture ) around 200 years ago, ALL THE CHURCHES (apparently) had no such custom (of not covering) --- ALL the women wore a head covering , whether scarf, hat, or other. Only after open rebellion continued, did women even dare to show up without a head covering. (apparently) Certainly , in the first century, it was NEVER EVEN TRIED - it would immediately have been corrected in any of the assemblies of Ekklesia.
|
|
|
Post by John on May 1, 2019 12:53:06 GMT -5
.... And also how people take the last phrase to mean. Which says this:"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.". .... simple...... same as 200 years ago (apparently). Until part of the beginnings of the women's lib movement (the seeds planted and sprouted of rebellion against Scripture ) around 200 years ago, ALL THE CHURCHES (apparently) had no such custom (of not covering) --- ALL the women wore a head covering , whether scarf, hat, or other. Only after open rebellion continued, did women even dare to show up without a head covering. (apparently) Certainly , in the first century, it was NEVER EVEN TRIED - it would immediately have been corrected in any of the assemblies of Ekklesia. That is an interesting take. I have never considered that possibility.
|
|