|
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
Quote:
|
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Quote:
|
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
|
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Quote:
-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. |
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Quote:
|
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Quote:
|
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Quote:
|
Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.