- Aug 27, 2019
- 578
- 410
- Country
- Virgin Islands, British
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I’m wondering the same thing. Do you do it in synagogue out of cultural respect?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you asking why I do it or why not in church?
I’m wondering the same thing. Do you do it in synagogue out of cultural respect?
There are head covering observances throughout the ancient peoples. If I were to think like Paul, just for a moment in time and in Corinth, I would certainly advise modesty, respect and caution, caution as being the most important advice. Corinth had a culture of prostitution associated with Pagan worship. They, the priestess including prostitutes in the streets, practiced "bareheadedness" this is a Hebraic term and condition. BAREHEADEDNESS - JewishEncyclopedia.comI believe as Christians we've all came across the topic of head covering especially in light of
1 Corinthians 11:13-15. However, I want to bring to light another interpretation of those verses based on scholarship. This is mainly based on a podcast episode by Dr. Michael Heiser here (Naked Bible 86: The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15).
If you don't have time to listen I'll summarize so that we can have a discussion. When Paul implied that it is improper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered it's because Paul had a common view at the time that the hair on a female's head was part of her genitalia. This view is based on the medical understanding of his day. It would be improper for woman to display her genitalia (this case hair) when praying to God in the same way a lot of us don't pray to God when naked.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you. I look forward to your responses
EDIT: I've posted two of the articles that speak to that claim (it being genitalia)
Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering
This reference can be very "academic" so I'll post a summary of the main ideas in a next post.
Note: The reasoning for this view is because of the medical knowledge of the time and can be seen in various medical texts from example, Aristotle, Euripedes and
Hippocrates.
I’m Jewish and it isn’t out of place in that setting. In the churches I’ve attended it is. It would people something to talk about and isn’t worth the headache.
Well, that answered my question. I didn't know you were a Jew.I’m Jewish and it isn’t out of place in that setting. In the churches I’ve attended it is. It would people something to talk about and isn’t worth the headache.
Well, that answered my question. I didn't know you were a Jew.
Like not eating meat sacrificed to idols if it makes another brother falterAside from the genitalia aspect, and whether or not it is true, there is little doubt that there were (other) cultural aspects regarding women who covered or uncovered their hair.
And/but this is really a significant part of the point: Paul was culturally sensitive, right down to the form of his writing - (to the mixed Jewish-Greek congegration at Corinth, he used both peculiarly Jewish writing styles and structures, while presenting his arguments in the finest tradition of Pericles).
The question is whether we TODAY are to be sensitive to cultural views in various parts of the world. There are huge parts and ethnic groups who still consider it appropriate for women to cover their hair/head - not only in church and in prayer, but generally in public. It is not so long ago that this was the case in North America - indeed there are still groups that maintain this tradition. When we visit Christian brothers and sisters in these cultural setting, should we have the arogant attitude that OUR cultural understanding is superior to theirs, or should we be sensitive to local norms in humility and sensitivity - along the lines of Paul himself, seeking "to be all things to all, for the sake of Christ?"
Sometimes our insistence that OUR views are the RIGHT and TRUE ones is a stumbling block to people seeking a Saviour, and/or a way to express publicly their submission to One who is Lord.
The text immediately rules out any cultural interpretations. From the NRSV:
For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
Paul implies this was a creation mandate that goes back to genesis. According to Paul, since man's "head" reflects the glory of God. It should not be covered because God is to be glorified. A woman's head should be covered because man is not to be glorified.
As for the "because of the angels" part, the 2 main interpretations provided by biblical scholars are (1) head coverings allow angels to distinguish men from women (2) head covering prevent fallen angels from lusting over women (see the book of Enoch for a similar story) Neither allow for any "it's just the culture of its time" argument.
It's certainly a bizarre text, but it appears to mean what it appears to mean. Paul arguably undermines his own theology by saying a woman's hair itself counts as a covering.
A small minority of biblical scholars suspect this passage to be an interpolation based on it breaking the flow of the Corinthians letter, although breaking the flow isn't enough to establish a passage as being an interpolation. I certainly don't want this passage to be authentic (as well as many believing Bible scholars).
This is the kind of topic that I'll cover in a follow-up book because it's just a great example of how you really can't possibly understand the passage unless you have the first century person living in your head. Now, let's go to the ‘because of the angels’ line. Now when I first read this article, what got me first I was the title. The word ball in a journal title of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, I thought what in the world is this guy talking about. When I read the article, it’s like holy cow this just makes so much sense. It has high explanatory power for what's going on here. I noticed that he didn’t say anything in the article about what I’m going to be talking about here is important because of the angels. So what I did was I sent Troy Martin an e-mail and I said hey, I read your article, really enjoyed it, thought it was great but I have a question. Do you think that this worldview that you explained so well using primary sources in your article, do you think that this worldview is the backdrop for when Paul says that this is important because of the angels, that what he's thinking back to is Genesis 6? Is the Genesis 6:1- 4 offense, sons of God and daughters of men, is he thinking of the Enochian Watchers worldview that there was a strong stream of in the Second Temple period? Is this what Paul's thinking of in Jewish terms, in Old Testament terms, which is why he sort of throw this in?
Like not eating meat sacrificed to idols if it makes another brother falter
I find these connections to be incredibly obnoxious, naive, and more a reflection of our culture than any one the biblical authors lived in. That is, a culture of relativism rather than one which regards the Word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit (not the subjective religious mind of individuals) and which exegetes rather than eisegetes the Word.
You suppose the context is your "genitalia" inference, and other such "historical/cultural" contexts are presumed in other places of Paul's writing. Tragically for these views, Paul always gives what his context is for writing such commands. So what is Paul's context for Paul's writing, which precedes and follows the command?
"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God...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." (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7)
No mention of genitalia, the Corinth culture, the Corinth church, etc. The same error is made as to why Paul frobid women from teaching and usurping authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. "It was the culture/church/historical context" and other such nonsense. What does Paul say about Paul's context? "For the women in the church are disruptive"? No. "For the Ephesians don't like this behaviour"? No.
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:13-14)
It it because of the roles of men and women and upholding those roles. Not culture.
Paul implies this was a creation mandate that goes back to genesis. According to Paul, since man's "head" reflects the glory of God. It should not be covered because God is to be glorified. A woman's head should be covered because man is not to be glorified.
Neither allow for any "it's just the culture of its time" argument.
hears my response:I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you. I look forward to your responses
I wouldn’t judge anyone if they want or don’t want to wear a head covering. Personally, I like it. It makes me feel closer to God and feminine. It also makes me feel like I’m submitting to the will of God. But I don’t force myself to wear one every time I go to church or pray. I believe it’s a personal choiceI believe as Christians we've all came across the topic of head covering especially in light of
1 Corinthians 11:13-15. However, I want to bring to light another interpretation of those verses based on scholarship. This is mainly based on a podcast episode by Dr. Michael Heiser here (Naked Bible 86: The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15).
If you don't have time to listen I'll summarize so that we can have a discussion. When Paul implied that it is improper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered it's because Paul had a common view at the time that the hair on a female's head was part of her genitalia. This view is based on the medical understanding of his day. It would be improper for woman to display her genitalia (this case hair) when praying to God in the same way a lot of us don't pray to God when naked.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you. I look forward to your responses
EDIT: I've posted two of the articles that speak to that claim (it being genitalia)
Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering
This reference can be very "academic" so I'll post a summary of the main ideas in a next post.
Note: The reasoning for this view is because of the medical knowledge of the time and can be seen in various medical texts from example, Aristotle, Euripedes and
Hippocrates.
For Paul, nature forbade a man from having long hair. The crux here is whether "nature" refers to back to the original creation of Adam and Eve, or (2) "nature" refers to the Greco-Roman culture of the time. The first option can't really be confirmed or denied, but looking at the existing culture at the time could. I tried googling Greco-Roman male hairstyles; I found mixed results.I see the merit in that interpretation. However, what are you thoughts on his view that men should not have long hair? Verse 14:
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him"
"nature" refers to the Greco-Roman culture of the time. The first option can't really be confirmed or denied, but looking at the existing culture at the time could. I tried googling Greco-Roman male hairstyles;
(https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-long-history-of-why-were-still-so-angry-about-long-hair)It was customary for men in Ancient Roman to keep their hair short, explains Robert Bartlett, professor of mediaeval history at the University of St Andrews. “If you look at Roman statues, most of them have short hair.” Until that is, the fall of the Roman Empire in 500 A.D. With the arrival of Germanic tribes such as the Franks, Anglo-Saxons and Visigoths, long hair became a sign of nobility.
The Greek usage of that passage implies long in a feminine way. Many pagans at the time acted very effiminately with jewelry in their hair and that kind of thing. Paul himself grew his hair out when he took a vow later in the epistles.
Thanks for posting, fascinating! I’m sorry to see that some people are taking the new information as something to laugh at or mock, without doing the research to see if it’s true.I believe as Christians we've all came across the topic of head covering especially in light of
1 Corinthians 11:13-15. However, I want to bring to light another interpretation of those verses based on scholarship. This is mainly based on a podcast episode by Dr. Michael Heiser here (Naked Bible 86: The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15).
If you don't have time to listen I'll summarize so that we can have a discussion. When Paul implied that it is improper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered it's because Paul had a common view at the time that the hair on a female's head was part of her genitalia. This view is based on the medical understanding of his day. It would be improper for woman to display her genitalia (this case hair) when praying to God in the same way a lot of us don't pray to God when naked.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you. I look forward to your responses
EDIT: I've posted two of the articles that speak to that claim (it being genitalia)
Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering
This reference can be very "academic" so I'll post a summary of the main ideas in a next post.
Note: The reasoning for this view is because of the medical knowledge of the time and can be seen in various medical texts from example, Aristotle, Euripedes and
Hippocrates.
Thanks for posting, fascinating! I’m sorry to see that some people are taking the new information as something to laugh at or mock, without doing the research to see if it’s true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?