Submission? Or Power and Control?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. One can claim that some obscure 20th century interpretation of the text is actual truth, but that doesn't make it so.

We learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything hanging down over or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward modesty showing that a woman is submitted to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms and at every mention of God remain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '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.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth.

That's my understanding.

God bless,

Very good.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

Who am I hurting by discussing the issue and quoting a published booklet and saying I disagree?

But isn't that what everyone says? You see ILG you won't consider what you do is the same as your so called opposition is doing. You have entered a website which is supposed to cater to one religious group. You have come out of that religious group, and now are on a mission to liberate those who you view as disagreeing with you. You have young people, new converts who are still in this religious group. Some are "teenagers" who have parents who are trying to have their children follow them in the path they believe is Christian, being the UPC. You come along from your UPCI hater forum on facebook and start to rant solely concerning the UPC, and their material. But, instead of the Forum being entitled "Apostolic Foes Forum" or "Reasons why I Hate the UPCI part 3", or "I Had a Really Bad Experience, So, Share My Pain."

Somebody gets hurt.

Because after all, they didn't expect this place to be a venus fly trap.


But what about a father who tries to stop his 13 year old daughter from reading your material? But he can't because she has issues not only with religion, but with her own thoughts and feelings? Hey, parents can stop their young people from coming here, and even stop them from getting on the internet.

But what if you are wrong?

You just thumbed up a post with a John Chrysostom, Henry Alford? Yet, if you know anything about these two individuals they believed a woman was to let her hair to grow unhindered. Also, you wouldn't of been able to live in a church setting with either of these guys.

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

That easy.

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

PO - as before stated, ILG does not want an honest debate.
Notice that she did not dispute my statement or ndavids that she is vehemently anti-UPC.
So, I see no point in engaging with her.
Now, let me say that the entire uncut hair equals special favor with God thing is not my viewpoint.
I do believe that there is power in submission and obedience, even for men.
But, ILG's entire focus is to spread doubt and disbelief in ANY doctrine espoused by the UPC.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You just thumbed up a post with a John Chrysostom, Henry Alford? Yet, if you know anything about these two individuals they believed a woman was to let her hair to grow unhindered. Also, you wouldn't of been able to live in a church setting with either of these guys.

I'd be interested in seeing the references on this.

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

A woman's hair never stops growing. Therefore it is a fitting example demonstrating that even nature itself agrees with Paul's position that a woman should be veiled (I Corinthians 11:5-6, 13). I don't see a mandate for uncut hair. There is only the admonition for women to be veiled in church gatherings, which was a cultural expression of modesty at the time. Thus the heart of the issue is that immodest women shame their heads (their husbands). A loving and submitted Christian wife will love and honor her husband by being modest in her appearance.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'd be interested in seeing the references on this.



A woman's hair never stops growing. Therefore it is a fitting example demonstrating that even nature itself agrees with Paul's position that a woman should be veiled (I Corinthians 11:5-6, 13). I don't see a mandate for uncut hair. There is only the admonition for women to be veiled in church gatherings, which was a cultural expression of modesty at the time. Thus the heart of the issue is that immodest women shame their heads (their husbands). A loving and submitted Christian wife will love and honor her husband by being modest in her appearance.

It would probably be beneficial to the conversation to list any other cultural expressions in the NT that are not practiced today. Can you list any?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It would probably be beneficial to the conversation to list any other cultural expressions in the NT that are not practiced today. Can you list any?

The only few that I ever see listed as cultural are:

veils
long or uncut hair
women preachers


I laugh when I see liberal women argue for femininity but they have crop cuts that are lesbian-ish.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It would probably be beneficial to the conversation to list any other cultural expressions in the NT that are not practiced today. Can you list any?

Well, head covering is still practiced today throughout the Mid-East and in a lot of the very same regions that the early church advanced in. And women who travel extensively will often dawn head coverings when in that region of the world so as to not insult their cultural expectations of modesty. The custom is also still embraced as a social norm for women who attend services in a lot of the old world churches. But like I said, the point was modesty, not a legalistic mandate. Think of it as an ancient modesty standard. Today it might not offend our cultural sensibilities... but low cut blouses and mini-skirts would. Women who dress immodestly still dishonor their heads (meaning their husbands).

But you asked about other expressions... would these qualify?

The washing of a guest's feet in a gathering.

1 Timothy 5:10
Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

The custom of kissing upon greeting a dear friend.

Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

I'm sure that I can find more. But those immediately come to mind.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

The only few that I ever see listed as cultural are:

veils
long or uncut hair
women preachers

I think the argument after determining hair/veil is going to have to be whether it is cultural or not. Aquila gave a pretty persuasive argument for culture. I'd like to hear a strong rebuttal, other than, in the 16th century...

I laugh when I see liberal women argue for femininity but they have crop cuts that are lesbian-ish.

I know, right? I was having my taxes prepared, some years ago, and a woman mailman, ooops..., mailperson (lol) came in to have her taxes prepared as well. The tax guy looks up and says, "I will be right with you, sir." She had to correct him. I thought, well, you did that to yourself.

I've never understood why older women cut their hair like a man. Easier to take care of, but very unattractive, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well, head covering is still practiced today throughout the Mid-East and in a lot of the very same regions that the early church advanced in. And women who travel extensively will often dawn head coverings when in that region of the world so as to not insult their cultural expectations of modesty. The custom is also still embraced as a social norm for women who attend services in a lot of the old world churches. But like I said, the point was modesty, not a legalistic mandate. Think of it as an ancient modesty standard. Today it might not offend our cultural sensibilities... but low cut blouses and mini-skirts would. Women who dress immodestly still dishonor their heads (meaning their husbands).

But you asked about other expressions... would these qualify?

The washing of a guest's feet in a gathering.

1 Timothy 5:10
Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

The custom of kissing upon greeting a dear friend.

Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

I'm sure that I can find more. But those immediately come to mind.

Most of the groups that I am aware of that don the veil are Hispanic groups. I always thought they were transitioning from Catholicism.

Yes, the last two are great cultural examples. Those are the two that came to my mind as well.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But isn't that what everyone says? You see ILG you won't consider what you do is the same as your so called opposition is doing. You have entered a website which is supposed to cater to one religious group. You have come out of that religious group, and now are on a mission to liberate those who you view as disagreeing with you. You have young people, new converts who are still in this religious group. Some are "teenagers" who have parents who are trying to have their children follow them in the path they believe is Christian, being the UPC. You come along from your UPCI hater forum on facebook and start to rant solely concerning the UPC, and their material. But, instead of the Forum being entitled "Apostolic Foes Forum" or "Reasons why I Hate the UPCI part 3", or "I Had a Really Bad Experience, So, Share My Pain."

Somebody gets hurt.

Because after all, they didn't expect this place to be a venus fly trap.


But what about a father who tries to stop his 13 year old daughter from reading your material? But he can't because she has issues not only with religion, but with her own thoughts and feelings? Hey, parents can stop their young people from coming here, and even stop them from getting on the internet.

But what if you are wrong?

You just thumbed up a post with a John Chrysostom, Henry Alford? Yet, if you know anything about these two individuals they believed a woman was to let her hair to grow unhindered. Also, you wouldn't of been able to live in a church setting with either of these guys.

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

That easy.

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

I agree. When the majority of Oneness Apostolics hold to standards that they believe are biblical, what honorable intent can there be in bombarding a forum with the purpose of trying to discredit those standards? to see people leave the UPC and other Oneness orgs? and go where? be set adrift to backslide?

Even if you think the standards are based on misinterpretation of scripture, all you have is women who are dressing modestly and looking like women.