Women in church

[Endeavourer]

I do not discuss words that are not in the Bible. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? I ONLY use the Bible dictionary and your word is not in my dictionary.

Curious (thread jack): Do you believe in the free will of man? If someone accepts Christ are they saved?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Hi Redwingfan. If what you represent here is not true, are you willing to reconsider your position?

This is what I was told for years as well.

Due to some other circumstances which made me question my church's particular presentation of the reason for hats, I ended up doing my own research on the words Paul used, and was extremely surprised to find the truth is the opposite of what I had been told (and what you represented above). See below:

Our filters are conditioned to automatically see these texts as requiring a hat. However, in verse 15 Paul defines his usage of the word 'cover' to specifically mean 'long hair'.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair (2863 koma) , it is a glory to her: for her hair (2864 kome) is given her for a covering.​

2863 koma: wear the hair long, allow the hair to grow out.
2864 kome: hair, long hair​

Note: 2359 thrix: hair; the hair of the head (just regular hair) is not found in our passage.

Using 'long hair', as Paul wrote, fits the passage not only to our English-language hearing but also is more true to Paul's flow of this passage. All of the initial references to "cover" use a generic word meaning either 'cover the head' or 'veil' (2619 katakaluptó). However, the final word used in v 15 specifically cannot mean anything but a clothing or cloth cover:

Here is the passage, using Paul's definition of “long hair", interpolated:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having long hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without long hair (2619 katakaluptó) on her head dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have no long hair (2619) on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair (2619) on her head.

7 For a man indeed ought not to have long hair (2619) on his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

To add: v 14 carries forward in this vein literally (no interpolation): Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Followed by v 15 literally (no interpolation): But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering (4018 peribolaiou, or that which is thrown round for a covering, corpse-clothes, woman's head-gear. Some render this as "an article of apparel that covers much of the body, covering, wrap, cloak, robe).​

So, this interpolation flows well, and v. 15, both the English and the Greek, clearly state that a woman's long hair is in the stead of any cloth covering.

The history of this passage will more clearly point to the spirit of the law that Paul is addressing (it has nothing to do with hats, but is rather about avoiding the appearance of evil in worship so people aren't confused about whether your worship is anything like that in the temple of the goddess up the street). That is another interesting study. I was stunned to realize what concern Paul had about the congregation in Corinth that instigated this chapter. If taken in that spirit, the chapter flows very congruously with Paul's other writings and reinforces his other focuses on the spirit rather than the letter of the law. It reads like the character and from the heart of the Paul we've come to know through his writings.

I have studied this matter. I didn't grow up in the church and had never heard of head coverings before. Noticing that some women wore hats and others didn't, I was curious so I studied the matter. It's clear as day that Paul is referring to some sort of cloth covering in verses 4 and 5. The greek terms are used elsewhere in scripture to refer to a cloth coverinng. The greek term used in verse 15 is completely different and obviously referring to hair and not cloth.

 

[Strong in Him]

I realized from this thread that Corinthians is actually a letter that Paul wrote.

Most of the NT is - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon.

I have decided to dismiss it for that reason.

Your choice.

It was a letter directed at people who no longer exist about problems that have nothing to do with me.

Really?
So,

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.

has nothing to do with you; you don't need to know about the nature of love?
The Lord's Supper, the chapter when Paul talks about Jesus' resurrection and life after death, have nothing to do with you? You are not encouraged by the role of the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to God's people - gifts of teaching, evangelism, service etc; they have nothing to do with you?

It’s personal correspondence.

Not all of it is; very little, in fact, I would say is directly for them and their own situation.
But even if all of it was, it doesn't mean that we can't learn from it and should dismiss it as irrelevant. Haven't you ever written a letter/email to someone which contains advice, truth etc that someone else who read it might not also benefit from?
As I said, Paul talks about the nature of love, the Lord's Supper, the gifts of the Spirit, what the Gospel is etc - these are universal teachings; spiritual truths for everyone. You miss out big time if you dismiss them as being irrelevant.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus is the WORD of God. The Word of God took on flesh .

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God, John 1:1. Jesus is God.

Deborah was a prophetess and a judge.

Yes; leader of the nation, in authority over men.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

I can comment on this one because it's where I have the most experience with it. Everyone one that espouses the woman must submit in everything to the man always misses the verse that proceeds it.

Ephesians 5:21

21. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Yes, I know, it doesn't mean the husband doesn't submit to the wife, according to those who want to put women under submission at all times. Yes, I know, I am wrong according to what you believe.

Yet, there it is, plain to see for all. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The good thing? I know I am right according to prayer and taking it to the Lord. Do with it what you will!

I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make them drink.

The problem for you is that the biblical gender roles inference stands intact because it references the entire portion of Ephesians 5, including verse 21. Whereas your interpretation perishes if you do not extricate everything after 21.

After commanding the church as a whole to submit to one another, Paul then immediately goes on to qualify the unique manner in which husbands and wives do this. Wives submit themselves to their husbands authority and leadership, husbands submit their bodies to the use of providing for, protecting and washing their wives in the Word.

For a man who thinks he's leading horses to water, should you not convey more intellectual dignity than they?

 

[Robin Mauro]

No one. It's rude.
Bible studies are the forum for debate and discussion, not church services.

 

[Isilwen]

The problem for you is that the biblical gender roles inference stands intact because it references the entire portion of Ephesians 5, including verse 21. Whereas your interpretation perishes if you do not extricate everything after 21.

After commanding the church as a whole to submit to one another, Paul then immediately goes on to qualify the unique manner in which husbands and wives do this. Wives submit themselves to their husbands authority and leadership, husbands submit their bodies to the use of providing for, protecting and washing their wives in the Word.

For a man who thinks he's leading horses to water, should you not convey more intellectual dignity than they?

My intellectual dignity is intact, no worries there!

 

[Anguspure]

I realized from this thread that Corinthians is actually a letter that Paul wrote. I have decided to dismiss it for that reason. It was a letter directed at people who no longer exist about problems that have nothing to do with me. It’s personal correspondence.

The Gospels are similar. The Gentile Doctor Luke wrote Luke and Acts as a letter on behalf of Paul. The other gospels were written as letters to the Church for posterity.

 

[Emmylouwho]

This letter does relate to you. First we look at who the Bible was first written for. Then we look at how the Bible applies to us today. Sometimes this refers to the mysteries of God or the Hidden Treasures of God.

How does someone’s personal correspondence pertain to me, 2000 years after receipt, unless you involve science fiction stories?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you believe in the free will of man?

God gives us choice: life or death, blessing or curse, sickness or health, poverty or prosperity. He will not make our choices for us. WE have to choose for ourselves and He does hold us accountable for the choices we make. We choose to do the will of the father or we choose NOT to do the will of the Father. Some people believe free will is to have the freedom not to do the will of the Father in Heaven. We are to pay: "Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be done on Earth as in Heaven".

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does someone’s personal correspondence pertain to me, 2000 years after receipt, unless you involve science fiction stories?

I personally use Science to determine what is and what is not true in Paul's teachings. I esp use Science to determine my understanding of Adam, Eve, Eden, Noah & the Flood. God gives us the bible and God gives us Science. There is nothing in Science to contradict the Bible and nothing in the Bible to contradict Science. Also I have studied ancient history for over 50 years. This also helps us to verify that the Bible is true and accurate.

You can do a study on the Canon of the Bible if this is your concern. For example the Council of Nicea to determine what books are included in our Bible. This forum uses the Nicene Creed for their statement of faith.

If you have a hypothesis that the Bible is not accurate or true, then produce your evidence. Do your research to confirm or falsify your hypothesis.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Gospels are similar.

Matthew and John traveled with Jesus and studied under Jesus for over 3 years. Mark was the son of the women who owned the upper room where the disciples stayed when they were in Jerusalem. Paul at first considered Mark to be young and had a dispute with him. Luke helped them to get that straightened out. Luke was actually a doctor and a gentile. He did a lot of study and research to learn about Jesus and his teachings. He was a good friend of Mark and Paul and he traveled with them. Also Luke talked a LOT to Mary the mother of Jesus and that is where we learn about Jesus when He was a child.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does someone’s personal correspondence pertain to me, 2000 years after receipt, unless you involve science fiction stories?

We involve the Holy Spirit of God. There are paradigms and archetypes in the Bible. The only difference with the Bible is that the people are real. The Bible is bases on allegory, metaphors, symbols, parables and so on. I have been though teacher training classes. We do study the way Jesus teaches. He is considered to be the greatest teacher that ever lived.

 

[Endeavourer]

I have studied this matter. I didn't grow up in the church and had never heard of head coverings before. Noticing that some women wore hats and others didn't, I was curious so I studied the matter. It's clear as day that Paul is referring to some sort of cloth covering in verses 4 and 5. The greek terms are used elsewhere in scripture to refer to a cloth coverinng. The greek term used in verse 15 is completely different and obviously referring to hair and not cloth.

Did you read the Greek terms in my post which are the opposite of what you contend here?

Or, are you unwilling to change your stance even if you can see it is not according to Scripture?

 

[coffee4u]

How does someone’s personal correspondence pertain to me, 2000 years after receipt, unless you involve science fiction stories?

Culture changes, technology changes, fashions changes, but human nature doesn't. People 2,000 years ago were getting angry, frightened, feeling proud, sad and feeling love just like we do. So even a letter 2 thousand years old can be relevant to us.

 

[Anguspure]

Matthew and John traveled with Jesus and studied under Jesus for over 3 years. Mark was the son of the women who owned the upper room where the disciples stayed when they were in Jerusalem. Paul at first considered Mark to be young and had a dispute with him. Luke helped them to get that straightened out. Luke was actually a doctor and a gentile. He did a lot of study and research to learn about Jesus and his teachings. He was a good friend of Mark and Paul and he traveled with them. Also Luke talked a LOT to Mary the mother of Jesus and that is where we learn about Jesus when He was a child.

All true. My point is more the purpose for which they wrote. I'm pretty sure none of them (apart from perhaps John on Patmos) thought that they were writing Scripture as such. The Greek used is not the sort of language used for writing formal documents, rather it is street Greek perhaps indicating a more down to Earth intent.
@Emmylouwho was denying Paul's letters to the Corinthians as scripture because it was simply a letter written to the Church, my point is that pretty much all of the NT was written for the same sort of mundane purpose.

 

[Strong in Him]

How does someone’s personal correspondence pertain to me, 2000 years after receipt, unless you involve science fiction stories?

Why do you think it was put in the Bible if it was personal correspondence and nobody else's business?

 

[Emmylouwho]

Why do you think it was put in the Bible if it was personal correspondence and nobody else's business?

I really have no idea, but as I said, it’s someone else’s mail who wasn’t directed towards me, and is therefore treated regarded in the same way Paul likely regarded it... as mail, a personal letter.

 

[Strong in Him]

I really have no idea, but as I said, it’s someone else’s mail who wasn’t directed towards me, and is therefore treated regarded in the same way Paul likely regarded it... as mail, a personal letter.

That's your opinion; not that of the Christian church.

You still have not said how, or why, 1 Corinthians 13 - the nature of love - is nothing to do with you.

 

[Emmylouwho]

That's your opinion; not that of the Christian church.

You still have not said how, or why, 1 Corinthians 13 - the nature of love - is nothing to do with you.

Of course that’s my opinion... as is anything else posted here. As for what I think of 1 Corinthians, I have dismissed it as being someone else’s personal mail.