Submission? Or Power and Control?

[TakingDominion]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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

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

Very, very good point.

[Aquila]

If we see this as an ancient modesty standard (the veil) reflecting the cultural norms of the time, we see several things:

- Culturally relevant modesty standards of dress are indeed biblical and within the authority of the elders.
- We see that immodesty dishonors a woman's husband.
- We see that when a woman adorns herself in modesty it shows submission and honor to her husband.

Those who would look at this with wide eyes and imagine some holy magic hair notion, or as some legalistic uncut hair notion, actually miss the entire point of Paul's polemic. A woman should honor her husband by adorning herself modestly. And immodest women bring dishonor to their husbands with their immodesty.

[Amanah]

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

The KJV translates Strong's G2863 in the following manner: have long hair (2x).

I.to let the hair grow, have long hair

κομάω komáō, kom-ah'-o; from G2864; to wear tresses of hair:—have long hair.

-----------------

I'm leaving this thread at it's pointless to continue arguing.
I just want to say that it's perfectly reasonable to translate this passage as saying to have long hair you have to stop cutting it.

[Aquila]

I think what people aren't paying attention to is the design of the chapter. For example here's how it is structured:

Paul makes the argument for women wearing veils in church gatherings:

I Corinthians 11:1-13
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Now Paul draws a supporting argument from nature illustrating that even nature agrees that a woman should be veiled:

I Corinthians 11:14-15
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Most take verses 14 and 15 and run with them as the rule. But they were only a supplemental argument of example to support veils. Hence the phrase, "Doth not even nature itself teach you...?"

It would be like making the argument that men shouldn't wear womanly veils, and then saying, "Doesn't even nature teach you that a man shouldn't have his head covered? For it then and falls out as he grows older."

It's a supplemental argument to support Paul's overall polemic that women should ear veils. The point: Women should wear veils over their heads. Even nature agrees with this standard because it gave her long flowing hair that never stops growing to cover her head naturally. Thus if nature would cover her, should she not be veiled?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Paul told women that their long uncut hair was their covering which showed their glory. Men were told that if they had long uncut hair it was degrading.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Paul told women that their long uncut hair was their covering which showed their glory. Men were told that if they had long uncut hair it was degrading.

Follow the polemic, doesn't even the text bear out that a woman's long growing hair is a natural covering? Thus a woman should be veiled.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Follow the polemic, doesn't even the text bear out that a woman's long growing hair is a natural covering? Thus a woman should be veiled.

The polemic is originally against the woman who cuts here hair.

1st Corinthians 11:15 follows the idea concerning nature. He sure isn't talking about spiders and snakes. The Greek word for nature is pointing to the creation in the Garden. Plato used the word to describe the primordial world. Here we see it employed by the Roman Judean Shaul Paulous. Showing that if man allowed his hair to grow that he would wear the sign of the submissive, instead but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory?

1st Corinthians 11:15

For growing hair instead of a covering is given to her.
of the woman who wore it as a glory.

Jerome understood this passage to mean that a woman's growing hair was her covering glory. Therefore he employed the Latin word which we use today as nurture.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

Paul commanded women to be covered and men uncovered. This is obligatory today for the following reasons:

1. Paul was an apostle, inspired by God, to pen 1 Cor 11. It's Bible, therefore expresses the will of God. It is not merely an historical account of what someone did or said, but is a teaching (doctrine) of an apostle, therefore it is apostolic, Biblical doctrine, and istherefore still valid today.

2. Paul gave 5 distinct reasons in support of his doctrine: Headship, glory, angels, nature, and the universal apostolic practice. None of those reasons are "cultural" (except that they belong to the culture of the apostolic church), none of those reasons are "local" or unique to Corinth, Greece, the ancient near east, the Roman Empire, or the first century. The reasons are rooted in creation, the created order, nature, and the universal practice of the church. Therefore, the head covering doctrine of the Bible is still valid today.

3. The five reasons are related, but distinct. Therefore, if any one reason still exists, then the practice demanded by the apostle is still obligatory. Regardless of what one may argue about the reason from nature, or the current lack of unity throughout the churches, angels still exist, the head of the man is still Christ and the head of the woman is still the man, the man is still the glory of God and the woman is still the glory of the man. Therefore, the apostolic doctrine of head covering is still valid today.

[houston]

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

Of course I do. Don't you?

Oh wait, you mean a smack on the face with one's mouth/lips?

That is not the only meaning of kiss...