Uncut Hair

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Many times advisory, yes.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Truthseeker]

Here's one:

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
1 Corinthians 7:25-26 KJV
http://bible.com/1/1co.7.25-26.KJV

[Truthseeker]

Why did he admonish to not get married? "Time is short"

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
1 Corinthians 7:29 KJV
http://bible.com/1/1co.7.29.KJV

[Truthseeker]

Do you teach to avoid marriage because of the present distress and the timer is short? If not, why?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

How did you come to that conclusion?

This is what I asked. I'd like to know the reasoning you use to conclude 'much of what the apostles taught was merely advisory not authoritative.'

[Scott Pitta]

Looks like a fair comparison to me. Plus it is a new approach to a old issue.

Very interesting.

[mfblume]

For the record....

Originally Posted by Esaias

I forget, you're in Canada. lol

Point is, people recognise a headcovering for what it is, when they see it.

It does not elicit reproach if it's not present as it did in the first century. Especially in North America.

The other point is, Paul's teaching did not and does not depend on secular culture. The sinner folks in Corinth would not have freaked out about Christian women prying with their head uncovered, for the following reasons:

I disagree.

1. Sinner folks would not likely have been in a church meeting to begin with. Churches met in one another's homes, the gatherings were private affairs. While it is true that an unbeliever or unlearned one might come in, that was an exception, not a rule.

Sinners would come to church seeking God. That is the issue, just like Chapter 10. It carries over from Chapter 10.

2. There were many varied and different religious practices throughout the Roman Empire, religious bigotry was not common. Some religious groups practiced orgiastic drunken parties as part of their worship. With such a milieu it is highly unlikely they would have been 'shocked' at seeing Christian women praying without a headcovering.

I disagree strongly. Everyone has a conscience. Even in that day. And headcovering is an eastern practice and well known throughout that world.

3. The practice of headcovering was varied, there was no 'Gentile standard'. Therefore, pagans would not have been shocked or scandalised at variety in the Christian congregational practice, either.

I disagree. Watchman Nee was from Chin and said North Americans simply do not understand the issue. He taught head coverings. If I was in the same region I would teach it, too. It was a middle eastern custom and far eastern custom.

4. The only offense might have been taken by Jews. However, Jewish custom was not settled at that time. The practice of Jewish men covering their heads at prayer was a later medieval invention (see my previous post).

By the way he talked, Paul was aware the people were a reproach. Again , read chapter 10. It's the same context.

5. Paul never once referred to giving anyone offense in regard to this practice. The reasons he gives for his instruction on headcovering are rooted in Biblical precepts from the Law - he references the order of creation, the hierarchy of authority established since the Fall, the angels. He speaks of nature (not social custom) as teaching the same lesson (and nature is the result of God's creation).

He was giving support for his point. Just for the fact that he taught coverings in prayer and worship meant it was a public display. It was not for times of personal and private prayer. He users comeliness which is good appearance. The principle of what in that part of the world stood for submission is applicable to us in what stands for submission here. the issue is in the heart and it is submission. And submission was to show in what was complementary to that culture. Again, Paul wrote as though these people KNEW this already. And since it was not in the Law as a commandment, where did they come to know it from? Culture! There's no other answer.

6. He concludes by stating that what he taught is a universal Christian custom, it is the custom of all the churches of God. He said 'if any man be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God'. This means that whatever someone would contend for against Paul's teaching, had no support anywhere in the churches of God. In other words, the churches of God all, universally, practiced what Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians.

First of all in that day there were no church outside that cultural realm as there is today. But the principle of submission to order is in all cultures. How that is addressed in each culture varies, but it did not vary in their culture.

7. He even begins the discourse by referencing apostolic traditions/ordinances, things taught by the apostle - 'delivered' to the Corinthians - then correcting them on this instance. Thus, the headcovering was an issue relating to apostolic ordinances or 'practicing the faith'.

It was not preached nor taught anywhere, yet Paul spoke of it as though the Corinthians knew it. It is not recorded in the Word how they came to know it, and it's certainly not taught in the word as we have it today as a foundation for their learning about it. Since that is blank in the Word, we cannot say it was apostolic doctrine with no pre-exisitng cultural issue. And anyone in the east knows it is cultural. How many doctrines in the church are also CULTURAL and do not require us to have a Word of God in the form of a commandment to do it because God expects us to follow culture as apostolic doctrine?

But what is apostolic doctrine is not bringing needless reproach.

In short, there is simply no support whatsoever from the text indicating Paul was concerned about Corinthian sinners being scandalised by Christian women praying without a headcovering, and that if the scandal went away the need for headcovering would go away as well.

I think it is overwhelmingly so, simply because he spoke as though they already knew about it and were disobeying it, and there is no foundation for it in teaching in Law or by the Lord and apostles previous to this instance.

If the man was still created first, if the man is still the head of the woman, if the angels are still involved, then the woman still ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

Then the woman ought to be in submission. THAT is the underlying point aside from culture. Not a covering. The covering is applicable to that culture alone.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

For the record....


It does not elicit reproach if it's not present as it did in the first century. Especially in North America.

Right, so if women wandering the streets half naked like they do in some parts of Africa or South America (Rio?) does not bring a societal cultural reproach, then it follows that Christian women need not wear tops when in public in such places. I wonder if Sister Alvear has heard the news?

I disagree.

Well, if you didn't disagree we wouldn't be having this conversation. lol

Sinners would come to church seeking God. That is the issue, just like Chapter 10. It carries over from Chapter 10.

1 Corinthians 10 says nothing about sinners coming to church to seek God.

I disagree strongly. Everyone has a conscience. Even in that day. And headcovering is an eastern practice and well known throughout that world.

So people who thought it was okay to have a barbeque and invite the neighbors over, get drunk, rape young boys and girls, worship idols, and other such wholesale abominations, would have been SHOCKED (shocked, I tell ya!) at the thought of a Christian woman praying without a headcovering? And this shock would have been a prodding of their conscience?

BTW, if it WAS a prodding of their conscience, then it shows that the issue of headcovering stems from a matter of conscience, not culture. Thus indicating its universal applicability regardless of cultural mores or lack thereof.

I disagree. Watchman Nee was from Chin and said North Americans simply do not understand the issue. He taught head coverings. If I was in the same region I would teach it, too. It was a middle eastern custom and far eastern custom.

Watchman Nee taught a lot of things but he wasn't an inspired Bible writer. If headcovering is a middle eastern custom and far eastern custom, why do they do it in Africa, Europe, South America, and Central America? Why was it done in North America up until the late 19th century? I guess Antarctica is the only one left out? Did the Amish and Mennonites get it from some Arab? Maybe they got it from a converted Jew from Tarsus?

By the way he talked, Paul was aware the people were a reproach. Again , read chapter 10. It's the same context.

The context of chapter 10 is holiness, and abstention from sin amd idolatry and pagan practices. Why then would Paul be teaching Christian women to continue a pagan Greek practice or custom?

He was giving support for his point. Just for the fact that he taught coverings in prayer and worship meant it was a public display. It was not for times of personal and private prayer.

Nowhere does it say anything about 'public display'.

He users comeliness which is good appearance.

The word is prepon, and means proper, or right, or 'suitable', not 'suitable for public display' or 'good appearance'. Good appearance or public display is not part of the definition.

The principle of what in that part of the world stood for submission is applicable to us in what stands for submission here.

Bible, please? Where does the Bible teach that what pagans think is a proper expression of submission is applicable to the churches of God? Should Christians in Arab countries practice female circumcision?

the issue is in the heart and it is submission. And submission was to show in what was complementary to that culture.

Again, where is the scripture for this? The word submission does not occur in the discussion, except where Paul talks about how the Corinthians had submitted to the ordinances and traditions he brought to them. He then corrects several areas they were NOT in submission about - the headcovering issue, and the issue concerning gluttony at the Lord's Supper. Submission was to be shown by obedience to the apostle's commands, not by 'doing whatever the local heathen culture fancies is appropriate or sufficient.'

Again, Paul wrote as though these people KNEW this already. And since it was not in the Law as a commandment, where did they come to know it from? Culture! There's no other answer.

Culture is not in the chapter at all. Paul said 'I would have you to know' and then proceeded to teach headcovering. Sounds like they did NOT know until Paul explained it to them. But let me ask you - are you suggesting that unless the Law of Moses commanded something, then nothing in the New Testament is actually universally binding on Christians? Where is baptism commanded in the Law? Where is footwashing, the Lord's Supper, singing psalms, or even coming together in worship commanded in the Law?

First of all in that day there were no church outside that cultural realm as there is today. But the principle of submission to order is in all cultures. How that is addressed in each culture varies, but it did not vary in their culture.

Headcovering practice in worship, prayer, devotions, etc did in fact vary throughout the Greco-Roman world. Corinth was a cosmopolitan city, not some podunk trailer park in the hinterlands. There was no universal custom in Corinth regarding headcovering, except among the Christians. And that custom was universal throughout all the churches of God. Any church of God today will continue the apostolic customs laid down by the apostles, Otherwise, they aren't APOSTOLIC.

It was not preached nor taught anywhere, yet Paul spoke of it as though the Corinthians knew it. It is not recorded in the Word how they came to know it, and it's certainly not taught in the word as we have it today as a foundation for their learning about it. Since that is blank in the Word, we cannot say it was apostolic doctrine with no pre-exisitng cultural issue. And anyone in the east knows it is cultural. How many doctrines in the church are also CULTURAL and do not require us to have a Word of God in the form of a commandment to do it because God expects us to follow culture as apostolic doctrine?

How many times and in how many places must an apostolic doctrine be repeated in the New Testament for it to be an apostolic doctrine? It is taught right there in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. If that is not good enough, then what is? And where in the New Testament does it say 'anything taught in only one chapter of a New Testament epistle is non binding, it has to be taught all over the place'? And how many places does such a statement appear in the New Testament?

But what is apostolic doctrine is not bringing needless reproach.

Apostolic doctrine is whatever the apostles taught. And Paul taught headcovering as a universal practice of all the churches of God, from Dan to Beersheba, and Canada and Texas, too.

I think it is overwhelmingly so, simply because he spoke as though they already knew about it and were disobeying it, and there is no foundation for it in teaching in Law or by the Lord and apostles previous to this instance.

So they never could have heard it during the year and a half he preached to them, or the however many years passed prior to his writing this epistle? Are you saying it is impossible for them to have heard about it before except either through the writings of Moses?

Then the woman ought to be in submission. THAT is the underlying point aside from culture. Not a covering. The covering is applicable to that culture alone.

And of course I do not agree with your conclusion here, for reasons stated previously.

[Esaias]

Now, see how brother Blume and I can disagree, even disagree strongly, on a subject, and still get along?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Then the woman ought to be in submission. THAT is the underlying point aside from culture. Not a covering. The covering is applicable to that culture alone.

It's not the "woman" that has to be in submission to the "man" but the "wife" to the "husband" and all are to be in submission to Christ. An unmarried woman is not in submission to any and every man.