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?

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

I would respond, that is all 100% correct.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

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.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

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?

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Well this is really kind of you to say. I greatly appreciate it! I'm very glad you found that thread helpful.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

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.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

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.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

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.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

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.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Sorry I missed this post. Where else in the Pauline epistles do we find Paul upholding Roman traditions? Which by the way were many. Most opposed the Judean customs of Paul’s day. Also why did Paul put his foot down against arguing about the subject of head coverings? Paul, never tells his readers that this was just a Corinthian custom. But, a custom held by all the churches. Are we to assume all the churches in the city of Corinth? Paul mingles his topic of head coverings with authority of the Church and the angelic. The Greek term which the New Testament employs for the English word “church’ meant a governing body. The Greek word is ekklesia, derived from ek ("out of") and kaleo ("to call"). In Hellenized Judea, the word referred to an assembly of selected citizens, like a city council coming together to deliberate, vote, and make decisions on civil policy. Should we also assume this word is being used by the Apostle because he believed the Body of Christ was the same as an HOA? While Paul was a good free born Roman citizen and understood the importance of keeping the Roman Peace in Romans 13. In the same chapter he combines his thoughts on civil duty with the commandments of Moses. Should we also consider Paul’s observation of civil duty to just be a Hellenized Roman Judean custom? Paul wasn't asking the Church to uphold the Pax Romana, but reminding them their duty as good Saints as followers of Christ. These were already views held by the Judeans as followers of Moses. Also head coverings were also not just a Roman religious, and civic custom. Many different ancient civilizations employed head coverings in the ancient world, all the way to Ancient Egypt.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

No, because in 2 Peter 3:15-16 the Apostle Peter noted that the Pauline epistles were scripture. Therefore the Apostle Peter refers to the epistles of "our beloved Brother Paul" as being on the same divinely inspired level as "the other Scriptures." The Apostle Peter is stating that the Apostle Paul wrote with divine inspiration. So, Peter is warning that the ignorant, and unlearned will twist these letters just as they do "the other Scriptures," thereby destroying themselves. The Apostle Peter affirms the divine inspiration and authoritative status of Paul's writings. In the case of the first epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul tells the readers in chapter 11, that they are to follow him, as he follows Christ. Giving his position as an Apostle of Christ, he also commends the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions and instructions he delivered, which were meant to keep them aligned with the Gospel. In the 16th verse of this epistle Paul lays down the law, "but if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches." Meaning, that Paul verdict and what he just taught on headship, and head coverings were undisputable. This wasn't just a Roman Hellenistic custom of just one Greek city, but it was what was taught and believed in all the churches. It was CHURCH custom. Period. Paul's epistles are holy scripture, and they were to be followed as he followed Christ.

I don't believe you understand the actual Hellenic Roman custom of Corinth, or the greater Roman world. Men, were front and center when it came to civic and religious head coverings. Piety required good Romans to cover their heads in religious observances, sacrifices, giving of incense, paying offerings. As well as head coverings during political civic duties. If we are to accept that the Apostle was urging the Corinthians to be "good Romans" then he totally went off the reservation with instructing "men" to not cover their heads. In Israelism of the Bible male head coverings were employed only in mourning.


It only makes sense if you don't understand what was going on with the first century Roman Hellenized Judea.

Again, if Paul is upholding Hellenic Roman customs to be followed in the Corinthian congregation, why is he coming against men wearing the head covering? Augustus was Pontifex Maximus, a position of supreme religious authority he held for life. In all religious ceremony he had to have his head covered. Any good Roman would be expected to follow Caesar's religious piety in worship. You have the Apostle Paul (Good Roman) teaching the exact opposite. Therefore, making your argument of Paul just trying to make his Corinthian church upholding the local custom, illogical.

https://i0.wp.com/historyandarchaeol...eg?w=366&ssl=1

On the contrary, the Apostle Paul’s decision to have Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3, was a strategic, not soteriological. But a decision to facilitate ministry among Judeans, not as a requirement for salvation or a contradiction of Apostolic Christian doctrine. Timothy was of Judean descent on his mother's side, his uncircumcised status posed a potential barrier to entering synagogues and reaching Jewish audiences. Paul practiced Nazerite vows, and took four men with him to ritual purification. While the Temple still stood in Jerusalem all Christian Judeans, and Christian diaspora were to continue to practice the Law. The only hindrance to Timothy's circumcision wasn't Christianity but Timothy's Greek (Hellenized Judean) father. The readers of Acts are introduced to Timothy's Greek father. Because per custom of the Greek Judeans were to prevent the circumcision at birth, despite what his Jewish mother would've wanted. As a result, Paul circumcised him later to avoid offense to temple Judeans. This would allow Timothy to enter synagogues and work with Judean audiences during their missionary travels, as his uncircumcised status made him appear "unclean."


Circumcision wasn't some "custom" like Xmas trees, or mistletoe, or Thanksgiving Turkey. It was a religious covenant between God and His people. Are we to believe, that Paul was just going through the motions and having young Timothy be circumcised falsely? Timothy was a legitimate child of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He being circumcised would make him a child of the Covenant. Circumcision was established as a foundational, everlasting sign of the Covenant between God and Abraham's descendants, not a mere lackadaisical Jewish religious custom. Timothy was a Judean, with his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice, therefore his circumcision was entered into legitimately, not just a disguise to enter into the Judean arena. Paul only taught Gentiles not to circumcise, or follow the Law of Moses, Acts 21:21, because that age was coming to an end, Matthew 5:18. But, the Judeans who were given the Covenant, were expected to keep the practice going until the end. Therefore Timothy was circumcised to be able to preach to Law observing Judeans. Paul refused to circumcise Titus, a full Gentile, because that was being demanded as a requirement for salvation (legalistic Judaizers). On the other hand, circumcising Timothy was recognizing his Abrahamic Judean right, not for legalistic justification, or soteriological purposes.

Kissing as greeting, departure, reconciliation, are Biblical custom, Genesis 27:26-27, Genesis 29:13, Genesis 31:28, Genesis 31:55, Genesis 33:4, Luke 7:38, Luke 7:45, 1 Samuel 10:1, 2 Samuel 14:33, 2 Samuel 19:39, Ruth 1:14, Psalm 2:12. Not just a Roman or Greek custom. Paul, was keeping with the Biblical Judean practice.


Where do you find where the Apostle Paul says the greeting was societal?

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Originally Posted by donfriesen1
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?

Good scholarly research here Dom. You blew my thought out of the water. 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. Does Dom here teach, does Dom want us to believe, that human intuition does not exist? We'll need clarification from him to determine with certainty.

Intuition. My definition: A feeling held indicating a needed action or value, as if by intellect but coming about/involving means of more than just the intellect. See my example, shown later.

What has not been refuted by mentioning what you did, Dom, is the idea that Abraham did it out of gratitude. Admittedly, saying Abraham tithed out of thankfulness is largely an educated guess. No one should say he definitely did it out of thankfulness, because we don't have needed info to say so. Yet, we compare our own experience with his, causing us to think he did it as we have done it.

Nor have you given indication that the originators, the very first pagan to tithe, did it as from a command of God. Right? The very first to demand or pay a tithe made it up themselves, unless they had been commanded by God. Whether it was a form of gov't taxation or giving for a priest's upkeep, it came out of the intuition that individuals living off the benefits of a society they are in, should help pay for it. This came by intuition, unless it came by a command of God.

Are you saying this command from God existed in pagans? Would it be correct to say that the first pagan to ask for a tithe did it as commanded by God? Not likely.

Dom, aren't you saying Abraham knowingly followed pagan practices in his sojourns? He may well have followed the example of pagan tithing, but not as doing it to an idol. He borrowed from pagan ideas to do to God. He tithed to the priest of the Most High God. Though I have no evidence to show for it, I believe Abraham was intimate with what Melchizedek believed in, not living far from him. He knew his tithe went to a kosher priest.

What later was commanded of God, tithing for the Jew in covenant, could then be said to copy that which pagans learnt by intuition, unless they were commanded by God. By your research you show that God was not the originator of tithing. Had God then incorporated into his Law that which Man had learnt, as per my assertion? You have provided me with evidence by your research, to support the points I made. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, Does Dom indicate that 'blow off' means that Man has discarded the image of God, no longer in possession of it? 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. We need to stop and define what is meant by 'natural mind' or we may eventually be seen to be talking about separate things.

Multiple things can be used for this definition. 1. Jesus used his natural mind to read that the Beginning showed Adam and Eve as one flesh, not to be separated by the will of Man, ie, not divorced. Anyone else using their own natural mind could have made the same conclusion to interpret scripture. 2. Many great scientists, some of whom are atheists, have made astounding scientific discoveries with their God-given natural mind. 3. Paul defines the natural results coming from the mind of Man as the works of the flesh. Natural mind would then define Man's sinful/carnal nature.

Is your definition among these? By 'using the natural mind' do you mean to say the mind used to interpret scripture or the mind used for curiosity or the carnal mind which always leads to sin? 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. I don't agree and don't disagree entirely. It is very natural for those who are condemned by a guilty conscience to be thankful for grace which subsequently teaches them, and then to also present their bodies a living sacrifice, their reasonable service. It depends on which 'natural' a person uses to refer to. The word reasonable points to that which comes from using our faculties of thought. Also involved is our heart. Thus we are motivated by our natural mind to do right, presenting our bodies, and doing so from something which is not a command. It comes from within - intuition.

I am hurt/angered when someone lies to me. This is not just hurt to my mind. My mind tells me that others may be hurt if I lie to them. Thus, my intuitive abilities, heart and head, given to me by God, instruct me in righteousness.

But, can you point to one command of God before Sinai, where God instructs man not to lie? He had no need to. It was encoded in the image of God in Man. What Man knew by intuition was later bolstered by Law, then making sin exceedingly sinful.

Romans 7:13 But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. Does God have two categories of sin? 1. Sinful. 2. Exceedingly sinful. No.

If sin is the breaking of Law, it is, then to what law does 'sin before the law' refer to in our example about lying, since no written spoken law against lying existed before Sinai? It was, in my opinion and conclusion, (only a) sin against the image of God and not against an unwritten or unspoken law which didn't yet exist. When God gave Law at Sinai he made the sin, which had come before there was law against it, to then be 'exceedingly sinful' law, because it now was against not just the 'hidden' law of the image of God but also the new written/spoken Law. Double whammy wrong, and so, exceedingly. But this is one man's interpretation of the thoughts coming out of the word exceedingly. Why do you, Dom, think Paul speaks of exceedingly sinful if not for the reason I give? Isn't this the first time Paul uses a superlative, kath' hyperbolēn, to describe sin?

While you explain, also explain why Paul says there was 'no law', which caused God not to impute sin (which exists). Ro5.13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law If there is no law, which is Paul's conclusion, then how could there be sin because sin is the transgression of the law. Until the law sin was in the world, says Paul, and he says there is no law. Paul says there was sin in the time when he says there was no law. My conclusion: sin was against the image of God which was in Man.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

So, you believe that God didn't communicate with anyone in the OT? Because you believe that God speaks in braille to His followers. Abraham was just thinking all this up? Also, what is a "pagan?" Where did pagans come from? Since you are telling us that Abraham learned these things from "pagans" which incidentally, Abraham was a pagan, before he followed God. Would you also say that Gilgamesh (Bronze Age) and his story of the flood, predates the story of Noah? Would you say that the story of Noah is really just a copy of the epic of Gilgamesh? I'll wait for your answer.

So, God creates man and man created God?

God poured out judgement upon the world of Noah. Obviously man's intuition was wicked, and therefore became God's enemy, so much so that He wanted to destroy mankind. Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve with free will?

Ok, where in the Bible does it teach this?

I want you to bring together some scriptures which teach that man through his own carnal mind can be thankful to God.

Romans 1 teaches the exact opposite. But, maybe you could produce some scripture which explains that the natural carnal man is thankful. So, far you are pontificating, and producing nothing to back up your claims.

In Romans 1:17-24, Paul points to the creation Romans 1:20, how all knew Him, but didn't want to trust Him, they were unthankful, and their carnal minds were turned over to become reprobate (darkened). They became fools and turned to idolatry. Therefore God destroyed them all. In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah a "preacher of righteousness" warned the creation generation of coming judgment while living in obedience to God. For roughly 100 years, he preached repentance and built the ark, signaling to a wicked creation age the necessity of turning from sin. God didn't need the Law in everyone's pocket. God walked with grandfather Adam and grandmother Eve in the cool of the Garden of Eden. In the creation it was a time of intimate, direct fellowship between God and humanity. In this idyllic state, there was no need for a written or external legal code. All knew God, yet, free will allowed them to reject the image of God, for the image of man.

So, God creates man and man created God? Wow.

Don, that doesn't take much. :laffatu

No human intuition involved, Abraham had an intimate relationship with God.
Genesis 17:1-22 God meets Abraham face to face. God was in full communication with Abraham in his calling to come out from Haran, Genesis 12:1-4. God tells Abraham that he would get Canaan. Genesis 13:14-17, Genesis 15, Genesis 18 the Lord meets with Abraham for lunch, and brings two angels. then in Genesis 22 God tells Abraham to sacrifice his promised child. No intuition, no sweaty palms, ringing in the ears, itchy feet, or bean dreams. Abraham was in direct communication with God. So, God told him to tithe. Now you PROVE God didn't. :laffatu


So, your position isn't Biblical? OK. :throwrock

Don, do you speak for all mankind? Or just Canadians? You say that we can't say Abraham was thankful, because the Bible doesn't say he was thankful? Yet, we're to interpret the scripture from our own experiences of being good thankful people?

Where do you think it came from? Or were the original pagans shiny happy people holding hands? Just so thankful to give tithes?

Do you believe Adam and Eve were the first in a long lineage of progeny? Cain, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, Jabal, Tubal-cain, Naamah. What we call "pagans" didn't spring out of the ether, or outside the covenant line, but rather developed from the early post-Adamic generations. At the tower of Babel, language is confused, if you know anything about language (which I highly doubt you do) then you would know, confuse the language, you confuse the narrative. Yet, these people started to go astray during the time of Noah. A flood destroying them all couldn't stop their twisting of God's words, and God understood that man's intuition is evil from the day of his birth Genesis 8:21. Those "pagans" during the time of he Bronze Age got their stories passed down, and traditions from those before and after the flood. Those who heard from God relayed those truths, yet those "pagans" just twisted the message to suit themselves and their agendas. You know, like you do. :)

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don, we are having a discussion concerning head coverings predating Christianity. I thought I would remind you of that since you accused me of not sticking to the main subject in the other thread. But, I digress, Don, every thread you want to change the subject to your cockamamy idea of the "carnal natural mind" being able to lead one to salvation. Bowas nailed you good, when he posted that you were just re starting another thread to make up for the closed thread. But, alas, you are predictable carnal religious guy, and therefore we must deal with you as a carnal religious guy. :)

Just because a scientist can discover the cure for insomnia, has no bearing on soteriology or theology. A monkey can use sign language to relay requests doesn't make it sentient to the leading of the Holy Ghost. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings are not intelligent enough to communion with God on a Spiritual level. Paul absolutely never taught that the mind of a natural carnal man can cause salvation. Again, the pygmy in a foreign jungle who never heard of Jesus Christ's Gospel. Will not by natural carnal means start writing out the Pauline epistles. Can the Holy Ghost find him? Certainly, but you over the years within your time in Pentecost, lost track of the Spiritual. You no longer believe that God is supernatural, but that man needs to follow his own leading. Am I misrepresenting you? Maybe, but all I can post about this garbage you've been shoveling is what I can deduce from its conclusions.

Romans 8:7

"That is why the mind that focuses on human nature is hostile toward God. It refuses to submit to the authority of God's Law because it is powerless to do so."

The Greek word for mind is φρόνημα which is interpreted to mean, thought, purpose, aspirations, inclination.

in·cli·na·tion
/ˌinkləˈnāSHən/
noun
1.
a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity.

The Bible teaches against the notion of "intuition" leading man close to God. It actually teaches that it drives man further away from God.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

This is true, but see Evangelist Benincasa's post above to see where there were distinct purposes and uses of head coverings or veils, for both men and women.

Correct. Paul called his teaching a tradition he had passed down to them.

1 Corinthians 11:2-3 (ESV),

the traditions: παραδόσεις (paradoseis)

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3862.htm

So, we see Paul has handed down to the Corinthians a traditional teaching which he himself had handed down to him through a previous source (perhaps Gamaliel?).

BUT, and this is key, as you've already mentioned, the Corinthians were already well versed in Greco-Roman life and culture. Corinth was well known as being a highly metropolitan city. So, Paul didn't hand down or transmit to them a Greco-Roman tradition they were already familiar with, one they would have already been practicing.

While true, this doesn't have sufficient explanational force for why Paul commended the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he passed down to them, as I showed above, since veiling the head was something the Corinthians would have inherited from the cultural milieu of the time, and not from Paul.

Therefore, something else must be in view. Again, as shown by Evangelist Benincasa, the Greco-Roman practice of veiling is not at all identical to the Christian practice Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 11. Something else is at play. Thematically similar, perhaps, but vastly different in actual application.

Yes, veiling the hair IS a culturally bound requirement. However, the requirement isn't bound to either the cultures of the 1st century Greco-Roman society in general, or the 1st century Corinthian society in particular.

Rather, the cultural requirement is that of the Kingdom of God. It is a part of the Church, and Her culture, as fundamental to the spiritual realities and understandings of the larger context of both Old and New Covenant Israel, i.e. the Church.

The question, then, is why? Why was this inherited tradition a part of the Church and the Kingdom of God? In my estimation, it's because of the long standing understanding, based in the Torah, of a married woman covering her hair.

Rebekah veiled herself upon meeting Isaac (Genesis 24:65). She had been betrothed to him prior, when Abraham's servant Eliezer negotiated the marriage contract with Laban and her family. But, upon meeting Isaac, as the story goes, she immediately veiled herself, then went into the tent and consummated the marriage.

Later, in Numbers 5:18, we have the Sotah Ritual, when a wife was accused of adultery by her husband, he brought her to a priest, who unveiled her hair as part of the ceremony.

Later still, in Isaiah 47:1-3, as a judgment against the virgin daughter, i.e. the people, of Babylon, a symbolic description is given of the specifics of how badly God is going to bring destruction upon them. One aspect of the description is given thusly:

"...put off your veil..."

But note the fuller context of the judgment:

Removing the veil was part and parcel of stripping oneself in public, i.e. the shame and disgrace of being naked before others. Note specifically, the word for disgrace, in Hebrew is חֶרְפָּתֵ֑ךְ (ḥerpāṯêḵ), which often refers to the pudenda, or external genitalia of a woman.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2781.htm

So, what do we have going here with all of this data?

We have a living example from the time of the Patriarchs of at least one woman veiling herself as part of her marriage ceremony. We have a law in the Torah about married women being forcibly unveiled in the Sotah Ritual, which specifically deals with sexual sin and indiscretion, which was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10), and we have a prophet telling us in poetic language that the unveiling of a woman's hair is tantamount to her being stripped bare and forced to go out publicly naked, forced, as it were, to have to show the world her pudenda or external genitalia, i.e. her vulva.

This is the understanding Paul had transmitted to him. A near contemporary of Paul, a Jewish Rabbi named Rav Sheshet, is quoted in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a) as saying:

See: https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.24a...h=all&lang2=en

What then is the conclusion?

In 1 Corinthians 11:15, we read this:

Please note, however, that this word translated "covering" is not the same as all the other instances when it is used in this chapter. In previous instances, Paul uses some derivation of the Greek word κατακαλύπτω (katakaluptó), meaning to cover with a veil.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2619.htm

But, in verse 15, it's an entirely different word. There, the term in question is: περιβόλαιον (peribolaion). This is significant. This word is only used one other time, in Hebrews 1:12, quoting the LXX of Psalm 102:26.

Psalm 102:26 reads:

"Change them like a robe" is interesting in the original Hebrew, because the word for robe: לְבוּשׁ (lebush) is used euphemistically to refer to a wife.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3830.htm

The reference is from Malachi 2:16, vis a vis, putting away a wife, i.e. removing a wife from the home as if throwing away an old, worn out garment.

We see then, that περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) can refer euphemistically to a veil that a (married) woman wears, and even to the wife herself (i.e. the wife and the veil become synonymous with each other). But it goes further than that.

As Troy Martin has shown, περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) was used in pre-Pauline Koine Greek poetic and medical literature to refer to a man's testicle, i.e. a man's external genitalia.

See: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-con...covering-1.pdf

These things all being the case, what is Paul conveying to the Corinthian Church, and by extension, to the Christian world at large, all the way up to today?

Effectively, a (married) woman's hair is understood to be regarded as part of her external genitalia and being able to see it unveiled constitutes something akin to being guilty of adultery, in the sense that a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage, and so, her hair, as understood to be a part of her external genitalia, becomes her husband's external genitalia, and the Torah forbids the uncovering or either's nakedness as a sin (See Leviticus 18).

This is the tradition the Corinthians had passed to them by Paul, that he himself inherited, which we now today, have codified to us in the 11th chapter of his epistle to them.

A (married) woman who prays or prophesies in church during public worship, but whose hair isn't veiled is doing so as if both she and her husband were naked.

So, for her to be veiled in every instance except in her home during private life is the cultural expectation of the Kingdom of God. It goes far beyond the Greco-Roman milieu of the 1st century. It harkens all the way back to the Patriarchs, is upheld through the Torah into the Prophets all the way to the time of Christ and the New Covenant Church, even being recognized by other Jewish rabbis near the same time, forward to 2026 and beyond.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

If the natural mind is an enemy of God? Then how can one interpret scripture through carnality? Do you have a verse or two which states, "with the flesh I can be led into all truth?" Don, what's the use of the Holy Ghost? Peter through his carnality was rebuked by Jesus. But, when Peter spoke as moved by the Holy Ghost, Peter was commended with the words, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Therefore when the Apostle Peter wrote his second epistle he knew first hand, "above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Ghost, and they spoke from God."

If man studies the scripture through carnal academic means he will only get a carnal academic view of Jesus Christ. The carnal mind created 45,000 different denominations, all with their offshoots and cults. I stick with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. Once a denomination does away with the spiritual, it becomes dryer than a mummy's pocket.


No way! Some criminal who robbed an old lady and got released on bail, may be shouting happy. But that is far from receiving the Holy Ghost, which is joy unspeakable and full of glory! Don, do you have the Holy Ghost? Do you speak in tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance? to be immersed in the Holy Ghost until it flows out like life giving water! Is a far cry from a State Trooper letting you go with just a warning when he needed to give you a ticket. Good God in Zion!



Don, that is never taught in the volume of the Book. You are teaching another gospel which there isn't another. The carnal man cannot please God. Romans 8:8-9 says it plainly, that if you are walking by your intuition you are not walking in the realm of the Spirit, and therefore you are not of God. Remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ alive in them do not belong to Him at all.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

PART 1/2Part 1/2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon
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).

This is true, but see Evangelist Benincasa's post above to see where there were distinct purposes and uses of head coverings or veils, for both men and women.

Quote:
It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth.

Correct. Paul called his teaching a tradition he had passed down to them. No OT command for head-covering is found which would have developed into a religious tradition. Can this statement be disproved? If it was a tradition (tradition and custom have such great similarities in their definitions that they often are used inter-changeably. Does Paul, in 1Co11? NO.) then it was of human origin, not religious. Paul usually bases his ideas on the OT, the only Word of God he has. He would not teach for NT doctrine things not having their origins in the only Word he loves. Therefore, his opening comments in 1Co11 can not be referring to a religious tradition of veiling. Can this be proved wrong? Showing the origin of a tradition by way of command would show this thought wrong.

1 Corinthians 11:2-3 (ESV),

Quote:
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you...

the traditions: παραδόσεις (paradoseis)

Quote:
HELP Word Studies:

3862 parádosis (from 3844 /pará, "from close-beside" and 1325 /dídōmi, "give over") – properly, give (hand over) from close-beside, referring to tradition as passed on from one generation to the next.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance:

Word Origin: from paradidómi

Definition: a handing down or over, a tradition

Thayer's Lexicon:

a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i. e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (see παραδίδωμι, 4); hence, equivalent to instruction, Epictetus diss. 2, 23, 40; joined with διδασκαλία, Plato, legg. 7, p. 803 a. objectively, what is delivered, the substance of the teaching: so of Paul's teaching, 2 Thessalonians 3:6; in plural of the particular injunctions of Paul's instruction, 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3862.htm

So, we see Paul has handed down to the Corinthians a traditional teaching which he himself had handed down to him through a previous source (perhaps Gamaliel?). I don't agree.

BUT, and this is key, as you've already mentioned, the Corinthians were already well versed in Greco-Roman life and culture. Corinth was well known as being a highly metropolitan city. So, Paul didn't hand down or transmit to them a Greco-Roman tradition they were already familiar with, one they would have already been practicing. Are you familiar with the counter-cultural revolution which was challenging the norm of those days? If other facts of history are used to help determine what Paul says to the Co, then this needs to be in the mix also.

Quote:
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.

While true, this doesn't have sufficient explanational force (this is especially true when giving it regard would contradict the view you want to prop up. Just saying. But...go on.) for why Paul commended the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he passed down to them, as I showed above, since veiling the head was something the Corinthians would have inherited from the cultural milieu of the time, and not from Paul.

Therefore, something else must be in view. Again, as shown by Evangelist Benincasa, the Greco-Roman practice of veiling is not at all identical to the Christian practice Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 11. Well....certainly! Almost impossible for anyone to disagree. Dom writes about men veiling, and you about women veiling. Something else is at play. Thematically similar, perhaps, but vastly different in actual application. Agreed, thematically similarity is a possibility if the subject is women, but only if it can be shown that Paul is distinctly referencing a command from God for veiling, which cannot be found. This command does not exist in the only Book Paul reads for religious instruction. Those who say that Paul references 'a command of God for veiling in 1Co11', use a lot of reading between the lines erroneously to do so.

Paul does not use a distinct religious word (in veiling for God) but uses the everyday word all Co/Greek used almost daily, of human origin. Words of daily practices are usually invented for the sake of convenience. The word google is a recent invention. If no OT command of God existed for a distinct obedience-command, then no distinct word would come into use for it (either in Greek or Hebrew). That none appeared shows that the Jew had not received a command for its practice. This word did not appear for the Greek who are miles from loving the Word/God, but a word/words did for that which was of human origin - veiling.

Something else is at play. What is in play is a desire to make Paul appear to say something he would not say. His words have long ago been misconstrued, leading to a long held view which is hard to let go of, because it has so long been considered gospel and woven into Christian culture as truth.

It should be seen that Paul speaks in 1Co11 of the use of two separate symbols. One, the symbol many nations in the ancient world recognized - the veil. It symbolized commitment to the marriage covenant. Two, the symbol of respect a woman had to her man's desires for a pretty woman. He likes the beauty of long hair. If she wishes to diss her man (as in a counter-cultural revolution) then she may deny in actions that which he likes. If she does what he likes, she shows regard to God's order of authority doing so. The opposite if she does not.

Quote:
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?

Yes, veiling the hair IS a culturally bound requirement. However, the requirement isn't bound to either the cultures of the 1st century Greco-Roman society in general, or the 1st century Corinthian society in particular. True.

Rather, the cultural requirement is that of the Kingdom of God. But not. Pauls says we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Do you wish to contradict Paul? It is a part of the Church, and Her culture, as fundamental to the spiritual realities and understandings of the larger context of both Old and New Covenant Israel, i.e. the Church. If this is so, then just saying so does not make a theological argument. Without the exegesis and scripture to back it, 'saying so' is only an opinion.

That no command for the veil is seen in the OT shows any references, to the veil there, are to a man-made culture. God does not command the keeping of culture as 'sinning if you don't', but does ask saints for compliance to culture norms so as not to insult cultural norms which negatively affect societal views of the Church/church.

The question, then, is why? Why was this inherited tradition a part of the Church and the Kingdom of God? In my estimation, it's because of the long standing understanding, based in the Torah, of a married woman covering her hair.

Rebekah veiled herself upon meeting Isaac (Genesis 24:65). She had been betrothed to him prior, when Abraham's servant Eliezer negotiated the marriage contract with Laban and her family. But, upon meeting Isaac, as the story goes, she immediately veiled herself, then went into the tent and consummated the marriage. Errr...Rebecca had connection with the Torah which was perhaps 450 years from existence? I think not. She had connection to the cultures of Mesopotamia, the idolatrous religions which later showed up in Jacob's tents, in idols brought there by her relative, Rachel. But do try again in efforts to show the OT commandments as the source for veiling. You've already convinced yourself of this and you may be able to convince other people who also are convinced by facts without substance. Do better, you who is rich in knowledge and experience.

Later, in Numbers 5:18, we have the Sotah Ritual, when a wife was accused of adultery by her husband, he brought her to a priest, who unveiled her hair as part of the ceremony. No one should deny that this really happened in Israel. But seeing it does not yet point to a command where God required all Jews to veil. All this shows is what a priest does in the Sotah ritual, but nothing beyond. But do keep trying. You may yet find what you want, to convince others.

Part 2/2 to follow.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Part 2/2Later still, in Isaiah 47:1-3, as a judgment against the virgin daughter, i.e. the people, of Babylon, a symbolic description is given of the specifics of how badly God is going to bring destruction upon them. One aspect of the description is given thusly:

"...put off your veil..."

But note the fuller context of the judgment:

Quote:
2 ...put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.

Removing the veil was part and parcel of stripping oneself in public, i.e. the shame and disgrace of being naked before others. Note specifically, the word for disgrace, in Hebrew is חֶרְפָּתֵ֑ךְ (ḥerpāṯêḵ), which often refers to the pudenda, or external genitalia of a woman.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2781.htm

So, what do we have going here with all of this data?

We have a living example from the time of the Patriarchs of at least one woman veiling herself as part of her marriage ceremony. Saying this about Patriarchs would not deny that which was similarly practiced in others, in pagan religions. As such it was culture, not command. Why do you wish to be seen asking culture to bolster your religious viewss. Use the Word/commands - not culture. But when the Word doesn't give what you want it to say, then I understand why you would want to use anything else you can find. We have a law in the Torah about married women being forcibly Oh, Yes! Using a word like forcibly will be really convincing as proof that somewhere there was a command of God that required the veil and the forcible removal. It would also show a priest as pre-judging her as guilty by rough treatment. Were priests not to judge fairly? Was this process not to be done to reveal her guilt or innocence? Yes.The priest would not pre-judge her but give her a fair trial, treating her fairly before she was found guilty - not roughly as if she was already guilty. And also, there is the lack of universal agreement whether 'parah' always refers to de-veiling or instead, the unbinding of the hair. Let us know when you find this invisible, non-existent command. unveiled in the Sotah Ritual, which specifically deals with sexual sin and indiscretion, which was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10), and we have a prophet telling us in poetic language that the unveiling of a woman's hair is tantamount to her being stripped bare and forced to go out publicly naked, forced, as it were, to have to show the world her pudenda or external genitalia, i.e. her vulva. You reference with words a prophet, but do not reveal source or identity so we can confirm for ourselves.Isa47 is written about ungodly idolatrous Jews who were to be punished for their backsliding ways, by capturers who would humiliate them. It had nothing to do with faithful Jews who religiously veiled in obedience to a command which did not exist. Similar things were done by all nations in those who had been captured. Referring to pagan war practices does not 'a command of God make'. Why such shallow searching for evidence when the Word of God, the OT, should abound with commands as something so important as God's Order of Authority and the symbol-kept showing compliance. Instead, scooping from pagan swamps. That it is necessary to go into the swamps for proof should have convinced you long ago that the proofs don't exist. What you say was required by God, wasn't. This is just grasping for straws, hoping for a limb to keep from the sinking you'll do unless you come up with something better. I won't wish you luck, because that would provide false hope for a hopeless cause.

This is the understanding Paul had transmitted to him. A near contemporary of Paul, a Jewish Rabbi named Rav Sheshet, is quoted in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a) as saying:

Quote:
Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1).

See: https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.24a...h=all&lang2=en

What then is the conclusion?

In 1 Corinthians 11:15, we read this:

Quote:
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (ESV)

Large portion deleted. see post 18 for what.

These things all being the case, what is Paul conveying to the Corinthian Church, and by extension, to the Christian world at large, all the way up to today? And here I thought that you would say that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. Those who believe the vv (veil view) are good at ignoring this. And those who believe the ulv (uncut long view) are good at ignoring every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Paul wrote both sentences and both should be incorporated into our head-covering view. No verses should be ignored...but some do so. If only there was a view which could explain they were both right. Wait! There is! It's the iv (instincts view) which has been shared in AFF on a thread here: https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55053 Effectively, a (married) woman's hair is understood to be regarded as part of her external genitalia and being able to see it unveiled constitutes something akin to being guilty of adultery, in the sense that a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage, and so, her hair, as understood to be a part of her external genitalia, becomes her husband's external genitalia, and the Torah forbids the uncovering or either's nakedness as a sin (See Leviticus 18). And? Is there an 'and' coming? Like in the creation of Eve, who was made without any veil. I'd expect that the writer would follow with a story-line beginning with "And because Eve in the Garden wasn't commanded or provided a cover so she could be seen showing due regard (according to God's Order of Authority guides), that she doesn't is explained by...."

Even after having a cover provided for her sinful nakedness, she is not seen with God providing her a veil at this same time. God does not provide her means to do something important, to show due regard to God and her man. He provides the greater cover but not the lesser. Tut tut, Lord. Are you new at your role as God, in this God-game and did you forget something, like the veil for Eve? Something important is missing!

God forgets for 4050 years. Paul is the first ever to command a veil, if he indeed is commanding a veil (he's not commanding anything). (If an explanation is ever given by another for Eve's lack in the Garden, then those with authority in AFF will pick up stones for the one presenting views which contradict theirs. But when all they have are stones, then what else can they do? They don't have the logical arguments which can convincingly show the iv wrong. You can't let an answer stay standing which reveals inconsistencies you can't cover for. You stone the one instead, taking all necessary efforts to discredit those who have no credit. This has actually happened.)

God left Eve butt-naked in the Garden, if we follow votivesoul along the path he lays. I'd rather have a path which from the git-go shows her covered. Check out the iv, whose author claims he leaves no verse ignored, no discrepancy without explanation. But then, lots of people have made similar claims. Talk is cheap, as we see in AFF often. Very, very cheap. Stones and words are very cheap.

This is the tradition the Corinthians had passed to them by Paul, that he himself inherited, which we now today, have codified to us in the 11th chapter of his epistle to them. Obviously, votivesoul, you've done vast amounts of research on the topic. Doing so gives you many facts which can be applied as evidence for what you contend for - your veil view (vv) which you say is Paul's. But you know full well that another researcher will come up with facts to be applied to another view, also seemingly logical in the context of their presentation. Oftentimes then, the better the presenter/researcher, the more convincing their view.

All your evidence-presenting jumps over/ignores the fact that - the OT shows no veiling command for a starting point. (It also shows no command for uncut hair.) Why do your arguments start in the middle of the story and not at the beginning? Why is there no Beginning or OT starting-point command in that which you say Paul now commands for the NT? You do say Paul commands the veil for the Church, don't you?

Better to say this: Paul loves the Word, the OT, the only Word in his possession. He would draw any NT commands from the Book he loves. Because he has not seen veiling as a command in the Book he worships, he would not command the Church to do that which he has not seen there. He would command, if he indeed commands, that which is actually seen. A view which better fits the facts needs to be embraced; and the vv let go of. Don't scholars usually say 'read the whole Book' and 'use the whole Book to make doctrine'. The vv and the ulv ignore this principle/guideline to formulate doctrine from mostly one chapter. They have to, because the whole doesn't show support for their views.

A (married) woman who prays or prophesies in church during public worship, but whose hair isn't veiled is doing so as if both she and her husband were naked. If true or not, wouldn't this be true whether for either a societal norm or for a religious tradition based on the Word? Of course. It fits both ways regardless of which head-covering view you hold.

So, for her to be veiled in every instance except in her home during private life is the cultural expectation of the Kingdom of God. It goes far beyond the Greco-Roman milieu of the 1st century. It harkens all the way back to the Patriarchs, is upheld through the Torah into the Prophets all the way to the time of Christ and the New Covenant Church, even being recognized by other Jewish rabbis near the same time, forward to 2026 and beyond. I hope you have the integrity to agree that the facts presented are mighty slim as convincing evidence. Your facts are true but slim for supporting evidence. A doctrine of such broad encompassing application, "touched" every day in a woman's life, needs better foundations than that just presented by votivesoul.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)

Quote:
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Now, plz votivesoul and Reader, plz slow down enough to re-read and contemplate the logic and scriptural thoughts presented by donfriesen1. Weigh them for wrong interpretation and false logic. If kosher, accept them. Reject that which is illogical or unscriptural by bad interpretation. Walk in truth as Apostolics should. Leave behind preconceived thoughts which have discrepancies or gaps, such as those shown in the vv and the ulv.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Yes, Esaias, Votivesoul, and myself gave valid arguments. You haven't posted any scriptural or historical refutation. You are just doing the above, which is pontificating and posing more questions.



Not where theology is concerned, we have the Apostle Paul telling his readers that they should follow him as he follows Christ. Paul's calling highlights the fact his authority and lifestyle are solely based on Jesus' authority. Therefore he makes this statement to preface what he will talk about in the chapter. Everything from nuts to bolts will be discussed as it comes from the leader, which Paul tells his readers, is Christ. They are to follow what he is about to lay out for them. Paul begins with this commending the saints and acknowledging their efforts to follow his teachings before addressing specific, serious problems in the following verses such as disorderly conduct, improper attire, and misuse of the Lord's Supper. We also should keep in mind that the Apostle Peter called Paul's writings of the exact same level and holy honor as the Old Testament. If Paul said it, then you can guarantee it was as good as it was inked down in the Old Testament, 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul uses the word παράδοσις which is translated into the the King James English word ordinances. In Galatians 1:14 it is translated as the "tradition of the Elders." The traditions which the Apostle Paul will be dealing with in 1 Corinthians 11 will be those traditions of the Elders, which in his case are the Apostles.


I know you've been beating the snot out of this tin drum. But, buddy boy, you haven't touch top side or bottom of any real solid proof. All you are posting is a bunch of rhetoric, and may bees. The Apostle Paul commended the Corinthians of their obeying all that he taught them. Which was the tradition of the Elders. Also, if we follow your premise, is everything else he teaches in 1 Corinthians 11 also of human origin? The Lord Supper? How one is to conduct themselves in dealing with that supper? Paul wasn't making suggestion, wasn't teaching Hellenized Judean diaspora and Roman Gentiles to be good citizens. If he was he totally blew it when it came to the subject of males in veils.

https://i0.wp.com/historyandarchaeol...eg?w=366&ssl=1

Only the the Old Testament? Paul specifically points out to his Corinthian audience that he was proud of them because they obey all the traditions, ordinances and teachings/παράδοσις he handed down to them. You know, the "παράδοσις" which was from JESUS! Also the 12 APOSTLES! Old Testament only? Should we start calling you Yeshiva Don?


Don, come on, how old are you?


Don, the Apostle Paul isn't just talking about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Read the chapter.

Ah..yeah. From Esaias, Amanah, Votivesoul, myself. I don't know if anyone else tooK a swing at you. But we all pretty much put this puppy to bed. Remember you kicked this dead horse so bad that the admin closed the thread? But, hey, you love getting dragged around by your hair and so we are still talking about your candy stick the "IV"

Don, do you know how we study Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, any ancient religious language? We try to find how they used it in everyday life during ancient times. We see how Paul's contemporaries used the word. Therefore we just don't use the word's dictionary meaning, but how the word is used in the context of the sentence, the paragraph, and how others used it in that time.
Also how the word was used in other areas in religious texts of that time. So, what we have is Paul teaching these Greek Judeans, and Roman Greeks the HANDED DOWN teachings of the Elders who would be the APOSTLES!

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/m...05_bYwA4My.pdf

Maybe I can try to add some information on the Bronze Age usage of head coverings, to recover the topic of the thread. The above is a PDF which covers just a small portion of the topic.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don, none of your points are valid. The only valid point you have is right on top of your head. The picture is of Augustus, as Pontiff Maximus, wearing a head covering. Like all good Romans would of worn in the first century A.D.. Yet, Paul teaches against men wearing the fold of the capite velato. Therefore your whole argument that Paul is allowing "tradition" of Hellenized Romans, is illogical and false. No word serving position for you. :laffatu

I already explained what Paul means by his use of the Greek παράδοσις. It's precepts passed from one generation or person to another, either orally or in writing. It is used to describe the Apostolic teachings, or the teachings of the elders, and rabbis. Didn't you read my last post? Post 22? Are you serious! Go and show where I'm wrong! You are real silly man. :laffatu


Reader? Who are you talking to? Where is this "reader?" Don, do you have any friends? Anyone who would care to team up with you and sign on to backup your Ecclesiastical nonsense? Also, Don, do you do drugs? Or do you knock down a case of Molson before you post to me? How about prescription drugs? Maybe you chug some Moosehead with your scripts? Then you post the above inebriated foolishness. Don, did you read post 22? Did you read post 14? You got the picture of Augustus from post 14, and post 22. If you did you would've seen my rebuttal. But, you are a Joker, certifiable Ecclesiastical Joker. :laffatu

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

To interpret 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 accurately, we must look past the Greek text to the Hebrew concepts of creation and honor that Paul, a trained Rabbi, was utilizing.

1. Head (Greek: Kephale / Hebrew: Rosh
In verse 3, Paul establishes a hierarchy of "headship." In Hebrew thought, the "Rosh" is not merely a "boss" but the "source" or "beginning." Paul’s logic is rooted in the order of creation: just as God is the source of Christ’s incarnate mission, and Adam was the source of Eve’s physical being, the "head" represents a relational origin that demands respect for the order God established.

2. Image and Glory (Greek: Eikon & Doxa / Hebrew: Tselem & Kavod)
In verse 7, Paul discusses "image" and "glory." The Hebrew "Tselem" (Image) refers to a representative likeness, while "Kavod" (Glory) literally means "weight" or "significance." Paul argues that man manifests God’s glory directly, while woman is the "Kavod" of man—meaning she is the "crown" or "excellence" of the human race. In a worship setting, Paul’s Hebraic view is that human "glory" (the head/hair) should be veiled so that only God’s "Kavod" is the focus of the assembly.

3. Authority (Greek: Exousia / Hebrew: Mimshal)
In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" on a woman's head relates to the Hebrew concept of "Mimshal" (rule or domain). Within the context of "because of the angels," Paul is drawing on Second Temple Jewish tradition which taught that angels were present during prayer to ensure divine order. A head covering served as a visual "Exousia," signaling to the spiritual realm that the woman was operating within the protected boundaries of God’s created order.

Summary of Interpretation
For Paul, this passage isn't about social inferiority, but about the "proper placement" of glory. By understanding these Hebrew roots, we see that the physical act of covering or uncovering the head was a way of honoring one's "Source" (Rosh) and ensuring that in the presence of the Holy, all human "weight" (Kavod) is surrendered to God.

Here is a glossary of the key Hebrew terms used to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 through a Hebraic lens

1. Rosh (רֹאשׁ) H7218
Translation: Head, Chief, or Beginning.
Hebraic Concept: Beyond just a physical head or a "boss," Rosh signifies source, origin, or primality. In the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3, it refers to a relational beginning—such as Adam being the "source" of Eve—emphasizing respect for the established order of creation rather than social status.

2. Tselem (צֶלֶם) H6754
Translation: Image or Shadow.
Hebraic Concept: Derived from tzel (shadow), Tselem refers to a representative likeness or a "shadow-outline" of an original figure. In verse 7, it defines man as a visible reflection of God's character and form on Earth.

3. Kavod (כָּבוֹד) H3519
Translation: Glory, Honor, or Weight.
Hebraic Concept: Kavod literally means "weightiness" or "significance". It describes the visible manifestation of importance or divine presence. In this passage, woman is described as the Kavod (excellence or crown) of man, and Paul argues that during worship, human "glory" should be veiled to prioritize God's supreme significance.

4. Mimshal (מִמְשָׁל) H4475
Translation: Rule, Dominion, or Domain.
Hebraic Concept: Related to the verb mashal (to rule or have authority), Mimshal refers to a domain of authority or a designated sphere of influence. In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" (Greek exousia) acts as a visual sign that a woman is operating within her God-ordained domain, a concept particularly significant in the presence of angels who observe divine order.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don, none of your points are valid. The only valid point you have is right on top of your head.

Okaaay....then. That's a rather pointed comment, don't you think, reader? Someone does not want to have meaningful Bible discussion today, wanting to sling mud instead.

One point I made - that there are no OT commands for head covering doctrine - cannot be denied. No one ever quotes a reference to any such OT verse, because they can't. Thus it is a valid point.

Why this is significant: Paul indicates the base for his God's Order of Authority doctrine is found in the Beginning. 1Co11.7-10. If the base is there, then the symbol should be too, when it is realized that all humans of all time (incl A&E) would need to show regard to God's Order of Authority - using a symbol. If the base is in the Beginning, Ge2, then it would be expected that the symbol would also be indicated. But God has not OT indicated by command either His Order of Authority or the symbol. As shown in my 1Co11 commentary, there is a reason for this.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Some then would even deny the reality of valid Biblical points, especially when this reality contradicts their head-covering views!

Dom should try making up a Bible verse and pass it off for a real one. This would be similar to denying Biblical reality. Who would want someone who denies Bible reality teaching them doctrine?

There are times when someone will want someone else to disappear from off the face of the earth. They will use extreme measures, like denying reality, to indicate this. But why? It is so easy to accept truth.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Baptism and communion were not commanded by Moses and yet here we are.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Amen, therefore we have the apostle's direction found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by "word," or our "epistle." The Apostle Paul admonishes the church in Thessaloniki to adhere to the paradosis "παράδοσις" of the elders, which would of been Jesus Christ, and the founding apostles. He would've NEVER considered teaching the commandments of "men." Since the Apostle Paul knew full well the words of Christ found in Mark 7:8-9.

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

The Apostle Peter associated the epistles of the Apostle Paul with Holy scripture, 2 Peter 3:15–16. This shows that the Apostles brought forth issues which were a mystery in the Old Testament to become plain to the converts to Christianity. Yet, the Judaizers, as well as the Antinomians tried to ignore this New Testament fact, bringing destruction upon themselves, and anyone who would be lead away by their teachings.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Yes, therefore we see Jesus Messiah manifesting the fulfillment of the law, saying "thus you have heard it said, but I say unto you ....." bringing further revelation.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

100% as always Sister Amanah :highfive

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Then cover it with your hat.


No, they don't think so, I guess since they haven't sprung to your defense, they pretty much like it. :heeheehee


Oh, I've tried, but as others before me found out, you only look for an echo. You are an ecclesiastical glamor boy. You want everyone to gather around your feet while you tell one and all how you have a deeper understanding of the scriptures.

Actually, I already explained that, but you don't care to read my posts or to show me how I'm wrong.

You ever read 2 Thessalonians 2:15? These traditions were transmitted orally, and in epistles to the Body of Christ. They were revelations of Jesus Christ, and the Apostles. The Apostle Paul's epistles were considered holy scripture by the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 3:15-16 .

Your points discount the teachings (traditions) of Christ and His Apostles, which Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 is where he gets his information.

Really? This is coming from you? The individual who believes that the Apostle Paul was just making things up as he went along? Using his intuition? You believe he used his "instinct?" Don, you are real silly man. :laffatu

What? What are you saying?

Polishing off a few more Molsons I see. :laffatu



You are gone man, Don, what on earth is wrong with you now?

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Part1/2.

Did you see that, Evang. Dominic Benincasa (Dom, for short), how Amanah puts forward pointed rebuttals without the nastiness used by you? That's how it can be done. She is a good example for you to follow, getting her points across, with grace, seasoned with salt.

To interpret 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 accurately, we must look past the Greek text to the Hebrew concepts of creation and honor that Paul, a trained Rabbi, was utilizing. Exactly! View and interpret the facts as Paul would have done in light of the times he lived in, with the knowledge he would have had. Think about this topic as he would have thought.

1. Head (Greek: Kephale / Hebrew: Rosh
In verse 3, Paul establishes a hierarchy of "headship." In Hebrew thought, the "Rosh" is not merely a "boss" but the "source" or "beginning." Paul’s logic is rooted in the order of creation: just as God is the source of Christ’s incarnate mission, and Adam was the source of Eve’s physical being, the "head" represents a relational origin that demands respect for the order God established. Scholars have long-debated which definition of Kephale Paul uses.

2. Image and Glory (Greek: Eikon & Doxa / Hebrew: Tselem & Kavod)
In verse 7, Paul discusses "image" and "glory." The Hebrew "Tselem" (Image) refers to a representative likeness, while "Kavod" (Glory) literally means "weight" or "significance." Paul argues that man manifests God’s glory directly, while woman is the "Kavod" of man—meaning she is the "crown" or "excellence" of the human race. Perhaps rather, she is the glory of her man because, even as significant as Eve was, she was made for him. That something as great as woman was made specifically for Adam indicates he was 'something else', remarkable. Thus, her presence indicates his glory. In a worship setting, Paul’s Hebraic view is that human "glory" (the head/hair) should be veiled so that only God’s "Kavod" is the focus of the assembly. You later say "Summary of Interpretation" Every Christian who takes the Word seriously takes the statements given in the Word, and uses them to form an interpretation, just as you have done.

I presume to think you here refer to Paul's words in 1Co11, where we say he speaks of an assembly or a church service. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

When Paul does not show references using either OT example nor OT command of God asking for a veil head-covering, which would then give the context used to provide an interpretation of his words, it then is left open for readers to decide how they will be interpreted.

Because Paul loves and is a scholar of the OT, the only Bible he has, which contains no command asking for a veil, nor example/story of a veiled woman exemplifying veiling as the specific symbol to show respect to God's Order of Authority, it then leaves these verses open for interpretation in many ways.

Did OT saints veil? Yes. Did they veil because of culture or command of God? That no veil command can be found lends credence that Paul's words references the veil which is seen in many ancient nations, not just Israel.

Plz someone, give an explanation why no OT command is seen for either a hair head-covering or the veil head-covering. I have done so, in my commentary. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

If the known history of the Co culture is taken into consideration as the context for this 1Co11 writing, then Paul's words can be interpreted as referring to the cultural custom of the time. Doesn't it make sense to think that Paul would teach, for the NT, the things the OT Word he loves has indicated. When it had not indicated a veiling command then it would be unusual for Paul to NT command something not seen in the Book.

Scholars frequently remind us, when formulating Bible doctrine, to read and use the whole Book to do so. The vv does not do this by referencing any OT command for veiling. Why not? Instead, its scriptural support is mostly verses seen in the NT.

At least two doctrines are indicated in 1Co11. 1) God's Order of Authority. 2) Head-covering. The latter does not exist without the former. The first can exist without the second.

The doctrine Paul teaches, 1) God's Order of Authority, is seen in the Beginning by Paul. It should be seen that that which is of OT origin should also have OT commands showing support. Why are none found? I have put forward a reason, but most, if not all, in AFF have rejected it, though it is a scripturally based explanation, while they in AFF do not provide an explanation as to why not.

Funny that, the supporters of the vv cannot provide an explanation but still reject a view which does explain. What thing prevents the acceptance of scriptural explanations, in the absence of a view which does not? Sometimes this is explained as 'denominationalism' or 'dogmatism'. Therefore, "I can't leave behind what my group believes, even while scriptural evidence indicates I should". (Shuddering disbelief expressed)

3. Authority (Greek: Exousia / Hebrew: Mimshal)
In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" on a woman's head relates to the Hebrew concept of "Mimshal" (rule or domain). Within the context of "because of the angels," Referencing 'because of the angels' does not yet clearly indicate which specific symbol is noticed by angels. Thus, it is only a statement worth noting as indicating something, without noting what exactly this something is. Paul is drawing on Second Temple Jewish tradition which taught that angels were present during prayer to ensure divine order. What you do here is what some do when giving an explanation using culture. Some refer to the Greek cultural practices of veiling and you here refer to Jewish cultural practices of veiling. What none can do is refer to an OT command for veiling. It does not exist. Any who say Paul refers to a veiling Jewish Second Temple practice are making educated guesses of this, and not wrong to do so. But usually doctrine is formulated from clearly made commands indicating God's will. It is normal to think that the head is the logical place for the location of symbols, because our eyes normally focus on the head when meeting or communicating with someone.

Continued in 2/2...

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

...Continued from 1/2

The Greeks, and others also, developed a practice of the use of a symbol to portray fidelity to marriage relationships - veils. A woman would not display the glory of beautiful hair publicly, doing so to avoid unwanted romantic attention, by veiling it. Thus, fidelity was symbolized by the veil but this not from a command of God asking for it. This was a man-made tradition.

Another symbol is also located on a woman's head - long hair. It symbolizes she will take the effort to plz her man, who likes the looks of long hair. Women will testify that it is easier to keep short hair, but have long hair in spite of the extra work. Men love the look of long hair on a woman. If a woman wishes to diss her man, then she may spite him by cutting her hair short. The feminist movements demonstrated this quite well. They said 'cut your hair' as a protest against who? Male chauvinism.

Thus, a woman's hair symbolizes respect for men's desires. She shows regard to God's Order of Authority doing so. This is seen 1) in that Eve was created for Adam's purposes and also 2) in God's words to her after the Fall, Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. God 'willed' for her to have the nature which showed this. She may reject man's rule by removing the things he likes, her hair. This does not show her keeping to God's 'will' to desire for him.

Thus, it can be interpreted that Paul refers to two separate head symbols. Neither of these were commanded for those in the OT, those who we could assume loved and obeyed God. This can be confidently said, because reading the OT does not show this command. Paul cannot see these practices as commands in his reading of the OT and would not NT teach that which he did not see in the OT Word.

If the OT has no command indicating the keeping of a symbol, then how could it ever come to be for Paul to command a thing he has not seen there, for the NT? Answer: Instincts.

The God-given instincts shown in the God-given nature of women seen in Ge3.16 revealed it as a symbol. Yet for Paul to see that long hair is a symbol coming from the instincts in the nature given women does not indicate that he would command long hair for the NT. If God had not seen fit to command it in the OT, then he would follow God's example and not command it in the NT.

Men like long hair on a woman and God said women would naturally have a desire for their husband. If a woman has the long hair a man likes, it then is a symbol of her showing her desire for your husband. It shows respect for how God made her - for her man. We call this: giving respect to God's Order of Authority.

If God has not commanded either veil or long hair in the only Book Paul has to read, the OT, and it really is instinct which motivates a woman to have long hair, then which instincts motivated the veil?

Does the jealousy a man might have, come because his woman got romantic attraction from showing her hair, this coming from an instinct? Is a woman's normal desire to protect herself and her marriage from unwanted romantic attraction, coming by a veiling instinct?

Rather than from instincts, these things may be seen coming about from Man's carnal Fallen nature. Carnal nature suspiciously thinks ill of others, and not showing the trust which jealousy denies. Her fears of the jealous one (or, just of any unwanted romantic attention she may herself not want to get when exposing her hair) and its repercussions, leads a woman to take means to make it not happen - by veiling herself. Veiling was a human invention used to cover the glory of hair which comes naturally. A head covering served as a visual "Exousia," signaling to the spiritual realm that the woman was operating within the protected boundaries of God’s created order. This signalling could be done by either the long hair cover or the veil cover. Both are plainly visible to angels. If neither are OT commanded of God, then which one naturally points to the one angels would observe?

Long hair is not a human invention. Veiling is. Therefore, there would have been a time when veils did not exist. Estimates of the first use are 2000-1400 BC. If accurate, then 2000 yrs of history previous had no veiling, and a woman was then without the symbol the angels look for. And for 2000 yrs she would not been seen to show regard to God's Order of Authority if the veil is the means - unless she does so from following her instincts for long hair. If there is no command of God to show the symbol, then instincts from her God-given nature may provide the means to do so. It is inconceivable that those women of God of that time did not show regard to God's Order of Authority. Instincts provide the means when no commandments are known for it. The symbol which the angels observe is long hair.

It thus is more natural to think this angelic-observance first started with the creation of Man. From the git-go the angels would have observed a symbol but not the veil. Eve would have been expected to show regard to God's Order of Authority even before the Fall, right? Yes, of course.

The dominant purpose of God's giving of hair is adornment. For, what biological purposes does it have if not mostly ornamental? If not mostly for those who would see it on someone else and not so much on themselves, then would it be only mostly for the person growing it? No. Well, yes for both, but would it be wrong to think it would be more for others, including angels?

Summary of Interpretation
For Paul, this passage isn't about social inferiority, Plz define what social inferiority is in relation to 1Co11. If undefined it then lacks proper meaning for those without the definition. but about the "proper placement" of glory. By understanding these Hebrew roots, we see that the physical act of covering or uncovering the head was a way of honoring one's "Source" (Rosh) and ensuring that in the presence of the Holy, all human "weight" (Kavod) is surrendered to God. It can be said that applying these Hebrew root-meanings can be seen to apply to the vv interpretation. They will fit it. And these same root meanings can also be applied elsewhere, in another interpretation. Seeing that they can be seen to fit does not yet provide firm evidence of which head-covering view is the best view. Had the Lord actually made a clear command for head-coverings, either OT or NT, then the many interpretations would not have appeared. The absence of this command is telling of something: God has not commanded head coverings. What is written in 1Co11 is from a view point that is not commanding anything.

God does not give commands for every detail in life. God has not made Man robotic, that every minute must be controlled by statute. Apparently, he gives Man life, stands back and thinks: I wonder what Man will make of what I've given them. Go for it Man - surprise me.

Here is a glossary of the key Hebrew terms used to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 through a Hebraic lens. Why Hebrew Amanah? What makes this better than the Greek. The Biblical writers and readers grew up in worlds where Greek was dominant, the language of the day, spoken and read by most in many nations. Thus, it is the cultural language most everyone grew up in, were steeped in, for thought and the words used to communicate ideas with. Isn't it thought by Bible translators that God gifted the world with the Greek language as the best language, for translation of the Word of God, into other languages? Why do you wish to add another unnecessary step into the process of our understanding, Gk to He to En, when the direct from Gk to En is the most logical? Paul is well able to convey Hebrew concepts he grew up with through the Greek language. Paul writes 1Co11 to the Co in their own native tongue.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Please tell us where we can find the Old Testament command which tells us to "Hate our Enemy?" Matthew 5:43

No, it does not. The Apostle Paul tells the Corinthian church that there was no debate over this issue. Therefore logic dictates that the Apostle didn't believe in multiple interpretations of his teaching. Just the one, the one which he taught. 1 Corinthians 11:16 the Apostle Paul admonishes the Corinthians that if anyone wanted to argue over what he taught, that "THEY" have no other PRACTICE. Meaning everything he taught was to be obeyed. Sorry, Don, but your intuition teaching of human instinct over the Holy Ghost is false.

Yet, what Paul teaches is specific to the Body of Christ. Not the Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, or Judeans.

The Apostle Paul is delivering a teaching which was held in all the churches 1 Corinthians 4:17. Hence he also makes this comment in 1 Corinthians 11:16

The Apostle Paul states that he taught the tradition of the Apostles as they were handed down to him 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Also the Apostle Paul wasn't taken into consideration the CULTURE of his time. Because the culture of his time not only had women veiled, but specifically men had to be veiled in holy observances. Also, if we just considered the Greeks, they went bare headed in religious observances called the ritus graecus "Greek Right." The went bare headed with a wreath of laurel leafs crowning their heads in religious activities. So, your argument is illogical when we understand the ancient culture of Paul's Roman Corinthian city.

Where is a lake of fire spoken of in the Old Testament? I love the way individuals sitting behind a computer on a religious forum referring to unnamed or unknown "scholars," "experts," or "studies" to bolster their claims. It is just an example of an Appeal to Anonymous Authority logical fallacy. :laffatu

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Because we have the old testament in Hebrew and Greek (the Septuagint). People have been able to compare and map which Greek words were chosen to express Hebrew words. Seeing the Hebrew behind the Greek can bring additional depth of understanding.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Using Strong's Concordance to trace a Greek New Testament word back to its Hebrew root (via the Septuagint) provides deeper theological context. A prime example is the word "Lord" in Romans 10:13, where the Greek Kyrios (G2962) refers back to the Hebrew Yahweh (H3068), transforming a general title into a direct, covenantal declaration of Jesus’s divinity.

Example: "Calling on the Name of the LORD" (Romans 10:13)
Scripture: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13, KJV).

The Greek Word: The word "Lord" is Kyrios (G2962), which means master, owner, or lord. In a Roman context, this could simply mean a polite address or a reference to Caesar.
The Hebrew Root: Paul is quoting Joel 2:32. In the Hebrew text of Joel, the word is Yahweh (H3068), the personal, covenantal name of God (often translated as LORD in all caps in the Old Testament).

Depth of Understanding:
By looking up the Hebrew root through the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the NT writers frequently used), we discover that Kyrios in this passage is not just a title of respect, but a specific replacement for the divine name of God.

Conclusion: Paul is explicitly equating Jesus with Yahweh of the Old Testament. Calling on the name of the Kyrios is not just a request for help; it is an act of worship acknowledging Jesus as the covenant-keeping God of Israel.

How to find this:
Look up "Lord" in Romans 10:13 in a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Find the number G2962 (Kyrios).
Look at the cross-references in the Blue Letter Bible or Bible Hub for that verse, which will show it quotes Joel 2:32, where the underlying word is H3068 (Yahweh).
Other excellent examples include studying "grace" (charis) by looking at the Hebrew chen (favor/grace) or "peace" (eirene) by looking at Shalom (wholeness/completeness).

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

:highfive

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

This is an outrageous statement! Don, I would rather give a rabid blind one legged chimpanzee a Word serving position, than YOU. :laffatu

I have mentioned this before many times, how through your nonsensical view of the Apostle Paul's teachings to the Church, you're actually bringing those teachings into question? You really haven't the foggiest idea what is being said in 1 Corinthians 11:16!?! You don't know! You think Paul is a madman! That he penned out 15 verses, only to finally disqualify those prior verses with 1 Corinthians 11:16? You ecclesiastical ninny :lol

Don, do they speak in English in Canada? Do they read English where you come from? Don, you can't read English, you most certainly can't read or understand the Elizabethan English of the KJV! I know you don't understand GREEK! You know Hebrew as well as you do ancient Klingon.

So, taking that all into consideration allow me to give you the Dick and Jane reader version of 1 Corinthians 11:16 "Some people may want to argue about this. But I have told you what we do. And all of God's people in the different churches do the same thing" EasyEnglish Bible.

How about this? "If someone wants to fight about these rules, know that all churches follow this tradition, so stop arguing."

Don, you are wrong, you are always wrong because your doctrine of touchy feely Churchanity is a meteor hurtling towards a Lake of Fire!

Oh, where is the Lake of Fire mentioned in the Old Testament?

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity