Men and hats II (The sequal)

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pete Richert, Aug 23, 2001.

  1. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted a new thread since the last one ran off with viruses and colds.

    Everybody here seems certain that men should uncover their heads when they pray, citing 1 Cor. 11:4. So I must assume that they you all agree that women SHOULD cover their heads when they pray, citing Cor. 11:5?
     
  2. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I agree. 1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

    Her head should be covered with the hair God gave her, and if not, she should have other covering [Greek: covering of another kind]. [​IMG]
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    Yes, I agree. 1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

    Her head should be covered with the hair God gave her, and if not, she should have other covering [Greek: covering of another kind]. [​IMG]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then keep reading, for what on earth can be done with <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trying to parse and diagram here. If she's not covered, let's shave her head. Can't possibly be talking about hair, because then it would read "If she has no hair, let her then shave her head".

    I understand there are TWO words for cover and that the English is &gt;&gt;gasp&lt;&lt; confusing. How do you all reconcile this?
     
  4. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simple. If her head is not covered, I.E., her hair is cut very short, in a man-like style, it is as if she is shorn or shaven (a penalty for adultery in those days)

    The Greek word here is "katakalupto" notice the prefix "kata" attached to the word for "cover" or "veil." Note it could read "down covered." I believe that indicates the length of the hair. And if her hair covering does not hang down, she will appear as if her hair is just growing out from having been shorn or shaved. The whole point here is the testimony of her husband, and her public submission to him as the "authority" over her. [​IMG]
     
  5. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    So short hair is the no no. So is that short hair in general or short hair cut in the style of a man?
     
  6. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, I'm coming to realize that there are baptist churches that live worlds apart from each other.

    Joshua
     
  7. RobertLynn

    RobertLynn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps someone could find some ancient pictures of what hair styles were worn by men and women in Paul's day, and then use computer animation to come up with a "Baptist Hair Styles" manual that we could post somewhere on the internet.

    Obviously we don't want to engage the thought that the principle being taught in this passage might have something to do with a situation that was unique to the Corinthian church, related to the culture of the day and, since it is only dealt with in Corinthians, might not be a universal instruction that would have applied to Christians in nearby Athens, much less all Christians everywhere forever.

    Nor would we want to look at the fact that men in hellenistic culture (Greek) often cut or shaved their heads, but men in the Jewish culture let their hair grow out. Or that in Paul's day, wearing a head covering in public was something that virtually everyone did, and that removal of the covering by a man who is praying also demonstrated, in that culture, his submission to God.

    Of course, if we get too literal here, I can always interject the reminder that women can also prophesy in a Christian worship service with her head uncovered. Unless we remove the cultural applications, we have a real problem with a contradiction from the same apostle Paul over in Timothy where he says that women can't speak in church at all. So which is it? A] they can't speak at all, or B] they can speak if their head is covered?

    I am sure there is a Baptist out there who can twist enough contexts and proclaim enough prayer time and experience to enlighten us all on this issue.

    [ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]
     
  8. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robert,

    Good, I love it when things are simple. So you are okay with women being pastors as well, for surely that was cultural, yes?
     
  9. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it was cultural.

    Joshua
    (who thinks some of his most gifted colleagues are women)
     
  10. RobertLynn

    RobertLynn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
    Robert,

    Good, I love it when things are simple. So you are okay with women being pastors as well, for surely that was cultural, yes?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, it was cultural and I don't have a problem with it.
     
  11. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Execllent. How about wives submitting to their husbands?
     
  12. RobertLynn

    RobertLynn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2001
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
    Execllent. How about wives submitting to their husbands?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is not a problem to understand these verses (in which the husband must also meet a responsibility to expect his wife to submit and which is often left out by those who want to beat this into a hard and fast doctrine) if we look at the context of the time in which they were written.

    1. Wives were the property of their husbands, ranking just below the house and grounds.

    2. Marriages were arranged by transfer of goods or money from husband to father. The partnership of marriage was between the son-in-law and the father-in-law. In order for the partnership to function, the wife had no choice and had to submit to choices made by her father and her husband.

    The context of the marriage relationship in light of our culture today is one of mutual submission, which is the principle being taught in the complete passage in Ephesians 5:22-33. In light of our individual equality and accountability before God (Galatians 3:26-29). A marriage is no longer a partnership between a son-in-law and father-in-law, but between a husband and wife.

    [ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]

    [ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]
     
  13. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks RobertLynn. I've gotten tired of saying that.

    Joshua
     
  14. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about homosexuality?
     
  15. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yup, those are the three:

    - other races
    - women
    - gay and lesbian people

    Some do-gooder always comes along and says, "Hey, our understanding of what the Bible says on these groups should be interpreted in it's cultural context."

    Then someone else says, "Well, I think the Bible is clear on this, and you obviously don't believe the Bible. I wish it weren't that way, but this is the natural, created order of things. We can't go changing that."

    Same arguments, different issues.

    Joshua
     
  16. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, just for clarification. You ARE saying that homosexuality was only a cultural taboo for their time. Correct me if I wrong.

    Now, how about sex outside of marriage?
     
  17. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes I am saying that homosexuality was just a cultural taboo for that time.

    Sex outside of marriage is more complicated. The Old Testament concept of marriage is so radically different from our contemporary one that I'm not sure we can make a proper analogy. I do believe that anything that can produce children belongs in a covenantal relationship. I also think that we have a general prohibition against licentious behavior from Christ.

    Joshua
     
  18. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that we will have a hard time making a proper analogy between old testament marriage and today. But just for the sake of arguement (and we can discuss this presupposition later) let's assume that the divorce Jesus talks about (in reference to marriage) is the same marriage we have today. Some sort of covenantal relationship as you would say.

    Since we have tenativly concluded that sex is for the covenantal relationship, then homosexuals should be in one before participating (even though it can't produce a child, but I think we would agree that it is the same thing). Not only so, but they should be in only one their whole life, less they be quilty of breaking that covenantal relationship as Jesus rebukes. Now our country doesn't allow (in most states) homosexuals to get married legally but I'm sure the committment can still be made in front of God and men. So would you encourage (or better command) that homosexuals should only be in one committed relationship, and that they shouldn't start having sex until the committment is made solid?

    Looking back, I see that I have made another presuposition. Do you think divorce itself was only a cultral taboo? I assume coming from the argument that it was so different that even though Jesus rebukes it, it wouldn't apply to us today?
     
  19. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since divorce in that era wasn't about relationships but rather economics, I would question whether Jesus' rebuke is about ending the covenantal relationship or about leaving one's ex-wife in such dire straits. I think we should take the admonishment seriously, but I'm not sure which is the focus.

    Regarding homosexuality, most civil governments don't recognize the validity of a marriage; but that does not preclude gay/lesbian couples from making a lifetime covenant.

    Joshua
     
  20. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    you wrote:
    **************************************
    Since divorce in that era wasn't about relationships but rather economics, I would question whether Jesus' rebuke is about ending the covenantal relationship or about leaving one's ex-wife in such dire straits. I think we should take the admonishment seriously, but I'm not sure which is the focus.
    ****************************************

    Well, here I think I can interject with what my own presupositions are on the marriage Jesus speaks about. God used the metaphore of marriage with Isreal, and it is again used in the New Testament for the Church in Jesus Christ. In both cases, I think it is pretty clear that it is about the relationship between the two, not the economics. And when God uses the metaphore of adultry in the OT, it is adultry agaist His relationship. Certainly God wasn't angry with Isreal committing adulty because that was leaving God in a bad economic situation. I don't think it is a leap that this same image God was painting of a faithful relationship in the OT is the one that Jesus says should never be broken.

    ****************************************
    Regarding homosexuality, most civil governments don't recognize the validity of a marriage; but that does not preclude gay/lesbian couples from making a lifetime covenant.
    *****************************************

    I agree. I made the same statement above. My question is whether you would preach that they should only be in one of those relationship per life, ie, on sleep with one other man or women ever. Do you preach that they should be abstinent until 'marriage' and that none of these 'marriages' should ever be broken. This would of course, assume that divorce was wrong.
     

Share This Page

Loading...