Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Head Coverings Predated Christianity (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=55189)

Costeon 02-07-2026 10:43 AM
Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world). It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth. If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public. Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?

Evang.Benincasa 02-07-2026 02:17 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1621171)
I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world). It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth. If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public. Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?
I would respond, that is all 100% correct.

Evang.Benincasa 02-07-2026 02:26 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1621171)
I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world). It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth. If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public. Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?
There is an issue with the idea “if Christianity never existed” shouldn’t be employed in an argument. It brings in all sorts of what ifs. But I understand what you are saying. Many items predate Christianity, which are similar but are different in how they are practiced in Christianity. Baptism is one of them.

donfriesen1 02-07-2026 06:15 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Costeon, though you may not have been aware of it, you provided great inspiration and motivation to me in your manner of posting and the things you shared in the Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women thread. Thank you for it. I wish I could find words to convey what I now feel in my heart. It is warmed to see your name and thread again. Welcome back. God bless. -Don Friesen

donfriesen1 02-07-2026 06:45 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1621174)
There is an issue with the idea “if Christianity never existed” shouldn’t be employed in an argument. It brings in all sorts of what ifs. But I understand what you are saying. Many items predate Christianity, which are similar but are different in how they are practiced in Christianity. Baptism is one of them.
Indeed. Although not the topic of this thread, plz allow me some observations of Baptism. I'll try not to do this 'thread hi-jacking' again.

-Baptism practiced by the Jew pre-John B was self-immersion.
-John B changed what was. He did the dunking, but not with a formula.
-Jesus changed what John B did by adding a formula for Christian baptism.

Adding a formula conveys:
-those who did the baptizing were authorized by another.
-indication of the one authorizing.
-giving credit for any benefit received, to the one authorizing.

I also fully agree with what was said by Costeon about head coverings. That practiced by the Corinthians was similar to that practiced by others. Its origins were from Man, not God.

Costeon 02-09-2026 01:14 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1621174)
There is an issue with the idea “if Christianity never existed” shouldn’t be employed in an argument. It brings in all sorts of what ifs. But I understand what you are saying. Many items predate Christianity, which are similar but are different in how they are practiced in Christianity. Baptism is one of them.
I see what you mean about the "what ifs." I guess I was wondering, if there was not already an expected custom in Corinth that respectable women wore veils—that some Christian women apparently were not upholding—would Paul have ever brought up the topic. In other words, is veiling inherent to Christianity? Or might it only be required in certain cultural contexts?

Costeon 02-09-2026 01:15 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 (Post 1621175)
Costeon, though you may not have been aware of it, you provided great inspiration and motivation to me in your manner of posting and the things you shared in the Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women thread. Thank you for it. I wish I could find words to convey what I now feel in my heart. It is warmed to see your name and thread again. Welcome back. God bless. -Don Friesen
Well this is really kind of you to say. I greatly appreciate it! I'm very glad you found that thread helpful.

donfriesen1 02-11-2026 10:47 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1621184)
Well this is really kind of you to say. I greatly appreciate it! I'm very glad you found that thread helpful.
I'd like to make you aware, if you aren't yet, that I had written on 1Co11 and the head covering doctrine.Your mannerism and openness to let the Word speak provided the direction I needed. It is in the thread called 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

donfriesen1 02-14-2026 10:15 AM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1621171)
I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world). It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth. If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public. Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?
OOPS! I am not the proponent you seek. Regardless, I have thoughts to share.

Costeon, would you agree that because veil head-covering practices pre-dated Christianity, that when Paul writes about it in 1Co11.5,6 it is about this man-made custom? If so, Paul is then only asking for those in the Corinthian church to hold to, and not to rebel against what was a local custom. It makes sense to think this. Paul is not commanding the Corinthian church, or the Church, to wear a veil as a sign of respect to God's Order of Authority but refers to the upholding of a local custom. (Thus, Paul has addressed two separate uses of symbolism. One, respect for marriage/society's expectations by the veil; and two, respect for God's ways by the hair.) God had not ever previously commanded any such veil head covering; ie, in the OT. Had he, it would then have given Paul authority to command the Church to now do so, with the veil as the symbol.

-That Paul asks one, Timothy, to be circumcised for the sake of the Gospel, can be seen as Paul asking for what was not commanded of Christians to now be done in a unique circumstance. It was done in response to a "custom" of Jews. He asked for this one-time practice, of a symbolical practice meaningful to Jews, to prevent their negative thoughts of the witnesses of Jesus. He only asked. This shows Paul as aware that the rejection of symbolical non-Christian customs may produced unwanted reactions which should be avoided for the sake of the Gospel. It could also be so with the veil.

-That Paul asks saints to greet one another with a holy kiss, a then prevailing societal custom but not an OT commandment, sees Paul asking the Church to keep the customs of their societies. God expects us now to shake hands in greeting instead of this holy kiss. Or does he command either, and say we sin when we don't do either? No. Paul is only encouraging the keeping of societal customs. So with veiling.

So too with veil head coverings. He strongly advises it for the Corinthian Christian as a part of the culture they lived in. Avoid offending local sensibilities by rejecting local customs, doing so for the sake of the Gospel, even though Christ has made us free from Man's ways.

Does God ever incorporate into his will for Man, things from Man's ways, those good things which Man has come across, such as veils?
1) Nothing is seen pre-Law commanding the use of the 'clean' category of animals for sacrifice. Important things are usually recorded, but none about these. Yet, God commands Noah to take 7 of the clean animals into the Ark for future sacrifice. Does God show he plays along with human-developed sensibilities by commanding them for Noah? Without scriptural definitives it would only be speculation to say so. Did God design Man in such a way that God-given intuition would naturally lead Man to recognize the acceptability of some animals as clean and the rejection of others? This also is speculation. We do know that there is no scriptural record of commands for the use of only clean animals for sacrifice, before the giving of the Law. We do not know the origins of this 'clean or unclean animal' understanding. It thus would not be incorrect to say it is of human origin.

2) Abraham tithed. No command previous to the Law is recorded asking for this, which later would have prominence in Israel by command. That Abraham tithed can be attributed to what he learnt on his own as his rightful duty, by intuition, but not by command of God which we have no record of. Important things are usually recorded. Has God shown he plays along with Man's ways by commanding later that which Man's intuition has started? Did God design Man in such a way that Man's God-given intuition would naturally lead where it did - tithing from a thankful heart and not law? It is a natural thing to be thankful. It does not need a law of God to make this so. Did God turn what Abraham had learned by himself as a good thing, into a command of God? How could this ever be determined?

3) Jesus says that God accommodated Israel/Moses with laws of divorce. Divorce was not God's original idea. It was by way of concession to their ways, that he allowed it. God's original way was seen in the Garden, Jesus says, but this was not implemented as such during the Law. God accommodated Man and incorporated into his Law their ways.

4) David taught about praise and worship with singing and instruments, in ways which no other before had done. But he himself did not learn of it by way of command. What he learnt by experience then became part of commanded ways of worship, God incorporating into law what David learnt by experience. God incorporates the good things Man has learnt, into his Law.

-God placed Adam on earth without many specific spoken or written moral guides. He expected Man to figure out moral guides by the means provided - the nature he gave them. It would naturally lead all in one direction for a man-made moral code coming out of the image of God each nested in their nature. This moral code God had embraced eternally in his own nature, and it was shared with Man.

Isn't the Cross the needed evidence that God organizes his activities to accommodate his ways for Man's needs? Of course. He accommodated himself as the sacrifice for Man. He felt a need to take responsibility, to act for Man's good, and then did something about it. It should not be thought inconceivable that God incorporates good things Man discovers into requirements he expects all to do, when it is considered that the first 2500 years of Man's existence were without much law from God, showing what he required. He lets Man figure out moral ways of living by seemingly keeping a hands-off policy in many ways, for many of those first years. I would conclude that God may have seen the good ways of Man's efforts to form moral codes leading to God incorporating them into the moral code he gives much later by Law. These good things Man discovered came about by the means God himself had infused by the image of God. Thus, these moral laws are his laws. Why wouldn't he incorporate them into Sinai Law, when they are his own? Of course, there is much speculation to this conclusion, but based on things scripturally seen and not whim.

If this speculation is with merit, does it then indicate that God would incorporate a man-made custom, veiling, into NT law for the Christian? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

But if no clear-cut commands are seen for either OT or NT veil head-coverings to show respect for God's Order of Authority, then how could it be determined if what Paul refers to in 1Co11 are commands for the Church or are just suggestions to the Church for good cultural relations? Answer: Paul says the basis for God's Order of Authority is seen in the OT scriptures. If the basis is seen there requiring a particular response, then the response which results from the basis would also be seen there. Important things are usually recorded. But there are no OT commands seen for the keeping of veil head-coverings as a particular requirement as a symbol to show respect to God's Order of Authority. If the veil head-covering had actually been seen there by command, then there would be a case that this is what Paul refers to as a symbol to show respect for God's Order of Authority. Because it isn't, then it should be seen that he does not refer to veil head-coverings as the symbol to show respect to God's Order of Authority. He refers to culture.

He thus makes reference in 1Co11 to two separate things which both use symbols. The head is the logical place to place symbols, both for spiritual and societal things; as the place of the center of attention when meeting someone.

This has been the presentation of one man's opinion. Does he use flawed logic when making conclusions? Whether or not this has been done determines whether or not the conclusions are valid for all to accept or reject. Are they unApostolic? Whether or not this is true or not does not detract from their truthfulness, unless it can yet be shown so. It is a scripturally-based opinion, looking at the facts of scripture/Paul's 1Co11 thoughts. They are also Apostolic thoughts because the writer is Apostolic.

Evang.Benincasa 02-14-2026 12:14 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
The Apostle never says head covering was a local custom. He made it clear that it was a rule kept in all the churches. The Apostle Paul emphasizes that his instructions regarding head coverings apply to all churches, not just some Roman custom located around Corinth.

Evang.Benincasa 02-14-2026 04:32 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 (Post 1621195)
2) Abraham tithed. No command previous to the Law is recorded asking for this, which later would have prominence in Israel by command. That Abraham tithed can be attributed to what he learnt on his own as his rightful duty, by intuition, but not by command of God which we have no record of. Important things are usually recorded. Has God shown he plays along with Man's ways by commanding later that which Man's intuition has started? Did God design Man in such a way that Man's God-given intuition would naturally lead where it did - tithing from a thankful heart and not law? It is a natural thing to be thankful. It does not need a law of God to make this so. Did God turn what Abraham had learned by himself as a good thing, into a command of God? How could this ever be determined?
Tithing wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews, and the tribes of Israel. We have records in cuneiform ( early Bronze Age ) which speaks of the practice of tithing. Abraham who was late Bronze Age would’ve already have known the practice of “the nobility tithe.” Therefore Abraham didn’t get a gut feeling, or just come up with 10% pay off to the King of Salem. Therefore Abraham would have understood proper eastern etiquette concerning spoils of war, and kings and priests. No intuitive feeling employed. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, and become his own god. The Bible states that man is wicked, Jeremiah 17:9. Therefore “natural mind” of man only leads him to ruin, not salvation. It’s not a natural thing to be “thankful” if it was you wouldn’t have to teach young children to say “thank you” when they receive something. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind of man is God’s enemy. That should be explanation enough to show that God isn’t depending on man to use his intuition to obey Him.

Evang.Benincasa 02-14-2026 08:32 PM
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 (Post 1621195)

Does God ever incorporate into his will for Man, things from Man's ways, those good things which Man has come across, such as veils?
1) Nothing is seen pre-Law commanding the use of the 'clean' category of animals for sacrifice. Important things are usually recorded, but none about these. Yet, God commands Noah to take 7 of the clean animals into the Ark for future sacrifice. Does God show he plays along with human-developed sensibilities by commanding them for Noah? Without scriptural definitives it would only be speculation to say so. Did God design Man in such a way that God-given intuition would naturally lead Man to recognize the acceptability of some animals as clean and the rejection of others? This also is speculation. We do know that there is no scriptural record of commands for the use of only clean animals for sacrifice, before the giving of the Law. We do not know the origins of this 'clean or unclean animal' understanding. It thus would not be incorrect to say it is of human origin.
The origin of the differences of clean and unclean was handed down to Noah. You point out in your own post, that God told Noah to take 7 pairs of clean into the ark. According to Genesis 7:2–3, God instructed Noah to take seven pairs (or seven of each kind) of every clean animal and bird onto the ark, totaling 14 of each kind. This provided extra animals for sacrifice and food after the flood, as mentioned in Genesis 8:20. Noah, didn’t figure out by some carnal intuition that he brought an extra number of clean animals to eat and sacrifice. Noah, had already knew the difference between clean and unclean. He was instructed by God, how to build the ark, and how and why the number of animals. Animal sacrifice “clean” offered to God starts with Abel. Obviously this program was handed down to his progeny. I believe Amanah did a great job pointing out God’s law before it was codified in Moses? With Moses it was all written down. Yet, murder was still wrong according to God in Genesis, way before it was written down with Moses. As I said before, the heart of man is deceitfully wicked, who can understand it? God isn’t counting on us to use our intuition to seek out His mind. We cannot use our carnal intuition to know God.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.