Jump to content
IGNORED

1 Corinthians 11 1-16 Should women wear prayer veils?


Servant of the Lord

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,128
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

Hair covering was a custom of that day for woman believers, as prostitutes did not cover their hair showing wonton behaviour. Thus Paul was desiring that women believers cover their hair as a `cultural sign` that they were in submission to their husbands, and not wonton. 

Foot washing was a custom of that day also etc etc.

Women (believers) who do not cover their hair today are NOT prostitutes.

Marilyn.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  229
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  10,900
  • Content Per Day:  2.95
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

On 12/17/2019 at 3:18 AM, Servant of the Lord said:

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

As we can clearly see, this is the Apostle Paul's personal opinion and not an ordinance directly from the Lord. Had this been the case, he would have said so accordingly. Paul being a Roman citizen probably had a beard, as he was Hebrew. But the style for men from Rome traditionally wore their hair short. Beards were also not typically the custom and it remained this way for hundreds of years. Sorry this is off-topic, but I thought it was worth mentioning. I used to get hammered about this on occasion by legalists. Having to point out the beginning of the passage made them a little upset. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  15
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,371
  • Content Per Day:  1.37
  • Reputation:   3,267
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  07/10/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Just my hit and run comment here......but Paul the apostle fully expounded the reasons for the differences between men and women and he neither overstated the case nor omitted any reasons.....and I'm sorry but to either add or take away from what he taught is just plain error.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is just plain error.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,868
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,621
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, DustyRoad said:

Excellent contributions, @Justin Adams and @other one. We might also bring up early Christian belief in the phoenix myth as yet another example of "beliefs which were commonly held in that day." Most people believed that the phoenix was real.  :) 

LoL,   there are people today that think it is real.....    maybe not 4th dimension real but on a spiritual level it is real to them...

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  65
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/16/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/2/2020 at 3:21 PM, Marilyn C said:

Hair covering was a custom of that day for woman believers, as prostitutes did not cover their hair showing wonton behaviour. Thus Paul was desiring that women believers cover their hair as a `cultural sign` that they were in submission to their husbands, and not wonton. 

Foot washing was a custom of that day also etc etc.

Women (believers) who do not cover their hair today are NOT prostitutes.

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn,

I would like to thank you for contributing to the thread. I respect your current position yet I'm sorry but whomever told you that was simply wrong. The reasons given for the instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 were given by the Apostle Paul himself within the chapter and one never, never, never, never substitutes a different reason if one had already been given.  If you study that passage you will see clearly that the reason for head coverings is due to the divine order and the angels. Because he invoked the divine order that makes the instructions for head covering for women trans-cultural. Meaning it transcends cultures like the principle of tithing. Tithing was done via the denariuos or shekel then, but now in US dollar. The underlying principle remains the same. Reading scripture in context is important, but we must be very careful not to use the cultural card on scripture.

Also, the passage is not specifying married women. It is specifying women and men in a general sense.  The entire chapter was in regards to corporate worship. The first 16 verses half a chapter of Holy Scripture had to do with head coverings for women, and the reasons why. The second half had to do with corrections regarding the Lord's supper.

As I stated earlier another common argument against head coverings is that it was a custom at the time and does not apply to us today.

Principles are those commands of God that apply to all people at all time in every culture and in every life situation.

Customs are those things that are variant local applications of principles.

For example, in the NT the principle of tithing was there and in those days it was done in the Denarius or the Shekel. Does that mean that the only way we can please God today is by paying our tithes in Denarius or Shekel? Of course not! The monetary unit was customary the clothing styles those are the things that are subject to change from culture to culture from place to place. The principle of modesty applies to all generations, but how that modesty is manifested will differ from one country to another and from one time to another. We understand that those things are customary. Many times, distinguishing between custom and principles is a relatively easy matter, but not always sometimes it is excruciatingly difficult to make that distinction.

Here is the Principle to apply if you can't decide if something is a custom or principle. The biblical principle would be whatever is not of faith is a sin. The burden of proof is always going to be on those who argue that such and such a command is custom and not principle. If you are not sure then the principle that applies is treat it as a principle, because if you treat a custom as a principle then the only guilt you bear is being overly scrupulous, but if you take a principle of God and treat it as a local custom and don't observe it you have sinned against God.

Every serious student of the Word of God first seeks to discover its meaning and standards and then, and only then, to bring practice into conformity with it. Biblical principles determine Biblical practice. 

 

A little bit about angels below:

Summary: Angel, "messenger," is used of God, of men, and of an order of created spiritual beings whose chief attributes are strength and wisdom. 2Sa 14:20; Ps 103:20; Ps 104:4 In the O.T. the expression "the angel of the Lord" (sometimes "of God") usually implies the presence of Deity in angelic form. Gen 16:1-13; Gen 21:17-19; Gen 22:11-16; Gen 31:11-13; Ex 3:2-4; Judges 2:1; Judges 6:12-16; Judges 13:3-22. Though angels are spirits Ps 104:4; Heb 1:14 power is given them to become visible in the semblance of human form. Gen 19:1 cf Gen 19:5; Ex 3:2; Num 22:22-31; Judges 2:1; Judges 6:11, 22; Judges 13:3, 6; 1Ch 21:16, 20 Mat 1:20; Luke 1:26; John 20:12; Acts 7:30; Acts 12:7, 8 etc.). The word is always used in the masculine gender, though sex, in the human sense, is never ascribed to angels. Mat 22:30; Mark 12:25. They are exceedingly numerous. Mat 26:53; Heb 12:22; Rev 5:11; Ps 68:17 The power is inconceivable. 2Ki 19:35. Their place is about the throne of God. Rev 5:11; Rev 7:11 Their relation to the believer is that of "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation," and this ministry has reference largely to the physical safety and well-being of believers. 1Ki 19:5; Ps 34:7; Ps 91:11; Dan 6:22; Mat 2:13, 19; Mat 4:11; Luke 22:43; Acts 5:19 Acts 12:7-10 From Heb 1:14; Mat 18:10; Ps 91:11 it would seem that this care for the heirs of salvation begins in infancy and continues through life. The angels observe us 1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; Eccl 5:6 a fact which should influence conduct. They receive departing saints. Luke 16:22 Man is made "a little lower than the angels," and in incarnation Christ took "for a little "time" this lower place. Ps 8:4, 5; Heb 2:6, 9 that He might lift the believer into His own sphere above angels. Heb 2:9, 10 The angels are to accompany Christ in His second advent. Mat 25:31 To them will be committed the preparation of the judgment of the nations. Mat 13:30, 39, 41, 42 (See Note for Mat 25:32) The kingdom-age is not to be subject to angels, but to Christ and those for whom He was made a little lower than the angels. Heb 2:5 An archangel, Michael, is mentioned as having a particular relation to Israel and to the resurrections. Dan 10:13, 21; Dan 12:1, 2; Jude 1:9; 1Th 4:16 The only other angel whose name is revealed Gabriel, was employed in the most distinguished services. Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26

Fallen angels. Two classes of these are mentioned:

(1) "The angels which kept not their first estate [place], but left their own habitation," are "chained under darkness," awaiting judgment. 2Pe 2:4; Jude 1:5; 1Co 6:3; John 5:22 (See Note for Gen 6:4)

(2) The angels who have Satan Gen 3:1. The origin of these is nowhere explicitly revealed. They may be identical with the demons. For Satan and his angels everlasting fire is prepared. Mat 25:41; Rev 20:10

 

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV)
1  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
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.

 

 

 

Edited by Servant of the Lord
typos
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  65
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/16/2019
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, DustyRoad said:

Excellent contributions, @Justin Adams and @other one. We might also bring up early Christian belief in the phoenix myth as yet another example of "beliefs which were commonly held in that day." Most people believed that the phoenix was real.  :) 

Great to see that you blow off half a chapter 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 of holy scripture as myth!

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

 

3:16 The fact that Scripture is inspired by God (literally God-breathed, breathed out by God's own speech; see also Heb 4:12-13; 2 Pet 1:20-21) does not negate the active involvement of the human authors. But it does affirm that God is fully responsible for his word. Scripture is true, reliable, authoritative, permanent, and powerful because it comes from God himself. Its message is coherent, and it is consistent in its testimony about Jesus Christ (Luke 24:25-27, 44; John 5:39-40; Acts 3:24; 1 Cor 15:3-4). Thus it has the power to bring salvation and elicit faith. It must not be abused, as the false teachers had been doing (1 Tim 1:4-7; 2 Pet 3:16), but must be taught properly. As a consequence of inspiration, all Scripture is useful. Including 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 which some find inconvenient. Both the OT and the NT are together our guide and teacher in life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, Servant of the Lord said:

I understand context quite a bit since I graduated seminary. I also understand in regards to 1 Corinthians 11 1-16  the rise of the feminist movement in our culture has made this portion of Scripture a veritable battleground.

There are many who have graduated from seminary that I would not support their teachings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  65
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/16/2019
  • Status:  Offline

11 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

There are many who have graduated from seminary that I would not support their teachings. 

Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Ryrie, Dr. John Phillips Dr. R.C. Sproul these are some of the best theologians support 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 head coverings for women while praying or prophesying in corporate worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  65
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   21
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/16/2019
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, Heleadethme said:

Just my hit and run comment here......but Paul the apostle fully expounded the reasons for the differences between men and women and he neither overstated the case nor omitted any reasons.....and I'm sorry but to either add or take away from what he taught is just plain error.

Thank you for your contribution Heleadethme.  I agree we should not add or take away, but I do believe we should look closely what scripture tells us and the plain meaning of the text. Please read the below carefully...

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV)
1  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
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.

Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (pp. 1785–1787). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

11:2 The apostle first of all commends the Corinthians for the way in which they remembered him in all things, and held fast the traditions just as he had delivered them. Traditions refer not to habits and practices that have arisen in the church down through the years, but rather, in this case, to the inspired instructions of the Apostle Paul.
11:3 Paul now introduces the subject of women’s head coverings. Behind his instruction is the fact that every ordered society is built on two pillars—authority and subjection to that authority. It is impossible to have a well-functioning community where these two principles are not observed. Paul mentions three great relationships involving authority and subjection. First, the head of every man is Christ; Christ is Lord and man is subject to Him. Secondly, the head of woman is man; the place of headship was given to the man, and the woman is under his authority. Third, the head of Christ is God; even in the Godhead, One Person has the place of rule and Another takes the place of willing subordination. These examples of headship and submission were designed by God Himself and are fundamental in His arrangement of the universe.
At the outset it should be emphasized that subjection does not mean inferiority. Christ is subject to God the Father but He is not inferior to Him. Neither is woman inferior to man, though she is subordinate to him.
11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, that is, Christ. It is saying, in effect, that the man does not acknowledge Christ as his head. Thus it is an act of gross disrespect.
11:5 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, that is, the man. She is saying, in effect, that she does not recognize man’s God-given headship and will not submit to it.
If this were the only verse in the Bible on the subject, then it would imply that it is all right for a woman to pray or prophesy in the assembly as long as she has a veil or other covering on her head. But Paul teaches elsewhere that women should be silent in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34), that they are not permitted to teach or to have authority over the man but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:12).
Actually meetings of the assembly do not come into view until verse 17, so the instructions concerning the head-covering in verses 2–16 cannot be confined to church meetings. They apply to whenever a woman prays or prophesies. She prays silently in the assembly, since 1 Timothy 2:8 limits public prayer to the men (lit., males). She prays audibly or silently at other times. She prophesies when she teaches other women (Titus 2:3–5) or children in the Sunday school.
11:6 If a woman is not covered, she might as well be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, then she should be covered. The unveiled head of a woman is as shameful as if her hair were cut off. The apostle is not commanding a barber’s operation but rather telling what moral consistency would require!
11:7 In verses 7–10, Paul teaches the subordination of the woman to the man by going back to creation. This should forever lay to rest any idea that his teaching about women’s covering was what was culturally suitable in his day but not applicable to us today. The headship of man and the subjection of woman have been God’s order from the very beginning.
First of all, man is the image and glory of God whereas woman is the glory of man. This means that man was placed on earth as God’s representative, to exercise dominion over it. Man’s uncovered head is a silent witness to this fact. The woman was never given this place of headship; instead she is the glory of man in the sense that she “renders conspicuous the authority of man,” as W. E. Vine expresses it.
Man indeed ought not to cover his head in prayer; it would be tantamount to veiling the glory of God, and this would be an insult to the Divine Majesty.
11:8 Paul next reminds us that man was not created from woman but woman was created from man. The man was first, then the woman was taken from his side. This priority of the man strengthens the apostle’s case for man’s headship.
11:9 The purpose of creation is next alluded to in order to press home the point. Nor was man created primarily for the woman, but rather woman for the man. The Lord distinctly stated in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
11:10 Because of her position of subordination to man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. The symbol of authority is the head-covering and here it indicates not her own authority but subjection to the authority of her husband.
Why does Paul add because of the angels? We would suggest that the angels are spectators of the things that are happening on earth today, as they were of the things that happened at creation. In the first creation, they saw how woman usurped the place of headship over the man. She made the decision that Adam should have made. As a result of this, sin entered the human race with its unspeakable aftermath of misery and woe. God does not want what happened in the first creation to be repeated in the new creation. When the angels look down, He wants them to see the woman acting in subjection to the man, and indicating this outwardly by a covering on her head.
We might pause here to state that the head-covering is simply an outward sign and it is of value only when it is the outward sign of an inward grace. In other words, a woman might have a covering on her head and yet not truly be submissive to her husband. In such a case, to wear a head-covering would be of no value at all. The most important thing is to be sure that the heart is truly subordinate; then a covering on a woman’s head becomes truly meaningful.
11:11 Paul is not implying that man is at all independent of the woman, so he adds: “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” In other words, man and woman are mutually dependent. They need one another and the idea of subordination is not at all in conflict with the idea of mutual interdependence.
11:12 Woman came from man by creation, that is, she was created from Adam’s side. But Paul points out that man also comes through woman. Here he is referring to the process of birth. The woman gives birth to the man child. Thus God has created this perfect balance to indicate that the one cannot exist without the other.
All things are from God means that He has divinely appointed all these things, so there is no just cause for complaint. Not only were these relationships created by God, but the purpose of them all is to glorify Him. All of this should make the man humble and the woman content.
11:13 The apostle now challenges the Corinthians to judge among themselves if it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. He appeals to their instinctive sense. The suggestion is that it is not reverent or decorous for a woman to enter into the presence of God unveiled.
11:14 Just how does nature itself teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is not made clear. Some have suggested that a man’s hair will not naturally grow into as long tresses as a woman’s. For a man to have long hair makes him appear effeminate. In most cultures, the male wears his hair shorter than the female.
11:15 Verse 15 has been greatly misunderstood by many. Some have suggested that since a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering, it is not necessary for her to have any other covering. But such a teaching does grave violence to this portion of Scripture. Unless one sees that two coverings are mentioned in this chapter, the passage becomes hopelessly confusing. This may be demonstrated by referring back to verse 6. There we read: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.” According to the interpretation just mentioned, this would mean that if a woman “does not have her hair on,” then she might just as well be shorn. But this is ridiculous. If she does not “have her hair on,” she could not possibly be shorn!
The actual argument in verse 15 is that there is a real analogy between the spiritual and the natural. God gave woman a natural covering of glory in a way He did not give to man. There is a spiritual significance to this. It teaches that when a woman prays to God, she should wear a covering on her head. What is true in the natural sphere should be true in the spiritual.
11:16 The apostle closes this section with the statement: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Does Paul mean, as has been suggested, that the things he has just been saying are not important enough to contend about? Does he mean that there was no such custom of women veiling their heads in the churches? Does he mean that these teachings are optional and not to be pressed upon women as the commandments of the Lord? It seems strange that any such interpretations would ever be offered, yet they are commonly heard today. This would mean that Paul considered these instructions as of no real consequence, and he had just been wasting over half a chapter of Holy Scripture in setting them forth!
There are at least two possible explanations of this verse which fit in with the rest of the Scripture. First of all, the apostle may be saying that he anticipates that certain ones will be contentious about these matters, but he adds that we have no such custom, that is, the custom of contending about this. We do not argue about such matters, but accept them as the teaching of the Lord. Another interpretation, favored by William Kelly, is that Paul was saying that the churches of God did not have any such custom as that of women praying or prophesying without being covered.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Servant of the Lord said:

Great to see that you blow off half a chapter 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 of holy scripture as myth!

If you were truly a 'servant of the Lord' perhaps you would not be so abrasive??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...