Posted on 04/27/2023 9:27:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Its an assumption that headwear makes women subservient to men. Most people don’t feel that way, just a few who want to be argumentative.
Not so long ago - within my lifetime - women covered their heads when attending religious services. It was and is the biblically correct thing to do.
It’s Warning to cover their heads with Christ because the fallen angles are coming back. And they like women. As in the days of Noah.
“...in Christ, there is no separation by gender. Woman and man have equal standing”
“No separation” is not the same thing as “equal standing”.
There’s no separation between Christ and the Church, and yet the Church certainly does not have equal standing with Christ. Christ is the head, and the Church is the body. The head can command the body, but the body cannot command the head.
Philip B. Payne (Ph.D. The University of Cambridge)
Piled high.Deep.
Good luck to the spiritual Pharisees and Sadducees of the last about 2,000 demon possessed swine years..
Yes
RE: The head can command the body, but the body cannot command the head.
Christ is the perfect head, so the church is obligated to obey and submit him unswervingly.
What does the imperfect earthly body do if the imperfect earthly head is wrong? is the body obligated to submit to the head then?
RE: Yes
So, women today MUST cover their heads as well?
It’s hard to tell sometimes when Paul is commanding or just saying what he prefers.
The context is about men "praying or prophesying" (v. 4) or women "praying or prophesying" (v. 5). With the prophesying aspect, I'm assuming that the praying is public praying (or leading in prayer as we say today). So this head covering instruction isn't for all men and women just attending church. This is for the people doing some aspect of leading in the church.
And for background on the culture: Greeks were big on presenting who they are by what they say more than how they dressed. Romans changed that by being more about how one dressed. This is the Greco-Roman culture in the Corinthian church that Paul was writing to. Also related is that it was the custom for many religions in the area, including Judaism, for men to have their heads covered during religious ceremonies. That Christian men have their head uncovered is quite remarkable in my opinion.
Altogether, I take Paul's teaching here to be about two points to those leading some kind of teachings or worship or whatever in church: men should dress like we have a direct connection to Christ by having our heads uncovered, showing that Christianity is about a very real relationship to Jesus and not some standoff-ish relationship like is expected with other religions. And women aren't supposed to show off their hair like a harlot in that day (IMHO look like a Greek temple prostitute). Just like shaving the head is a disgrace (verse 5), perhaps as many Aphrodite temple prostitutes in Corinth were slaves (head shaven) forced into temple prostitution. Showing off the hair suggesting looking like a temple prostitute who was doing it willingly.
Again, the context in this is about women not having a hedonistic appearance when teaching (prophesying) or praying like the worldly people were promoting a woman's appearance (much like is done today). And men who are teaching/praying should promote an appearance that says us Christian men are different from other men in that we know we have a direct connection to our Lord. Now with the customs today being different, I wouldn't say women who lead in church should cover their hair. But the overall attitude of modest appearance should be adhered to. As should men promote an overall attitude of us having direct access to Jesus.
Versus 9 and 10 in that chapter are key to the answer... For the woman’s submission and because of the Angels.
Well, here is how I see it:
St. Paul adds this is why a woman, or wife, should have authority on her head when praying or prophesying in a public church service.
Some Biblical Scholars read this to mean that a woman should have a symbol of her husband’s or father’s authority over her. Others understand it to mean that woman should use her own “authority over herself” or self-control to cover her glory—her head, in this case—while in public.
In either case, women should cover their glory while praying or prophesying in a church service because of the angels.
That statement from Paul leads to suggestions from Bible scholars that range far and wide. Most conclude that Paul means angels observe our public worship services. Since they are watching, it is important for women to be appropriate in covering their glory and not dishonoring their husbands.
It bears repeating that most interpreters believe the specific issue of a woman covering her head to preserve her glory for her husband was related to the social standards of the time. Paul is relaying specific application of a universal principle: modesty. Christians may live in widely varied cultures, with variant standards of dress and fashion. All believers should appropriately “cover their glory” in public worship services according to conscience and the standards for modesty in their own era.
Christ is risen. We are no longer bound by Mosaic Law. Head coverings for Christian women is an obsolete standard.
Without a doubt, it was standard practice throughout most of US history for women to wear head coverings at church — a hat, a veil, a scarf. The practice ended in the 1970s.
“In the 1970s there was a judgment issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document titled Inter Insigniores that basically stated that since chapel veils were not a matter of faith, it was no longer mandatory for women to wear them. In paragraph 4 it states:
“It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-happened-to-head-coverings-at-mass
And just because something is not obligatory doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Abstinence from meat on all Fridays should be observed throughout the year as a penitential act, the faithful should dress appropriately for Mass, the faithful should attend all the Lenten services during the Triduum, etc...
Most of those in the Catholic Church want an IKEA minimalist Mass and religious life. But what do you get out of that? Ugly furniture that falls apart when under stress.
From my experiences in divorce, I think it would be better for women to cover their mouths. Most men who come to me, that is their biggest complaint - that their wives never shut up their nagging. That they nag for the pure joy of nagging. That they nag, for the noise-aspect of it, like chickens continually cluck to each other. Then, when the women have destroyed any sense of closeness, they, the women, seek a divorce because they are no longer happy.
Isn't the only imperative in this passage about head coverings in verse 13? "Judge among yourselves" could be seen as commanding the church to make up its mind and don't fight about it and be contentious (verse 16). Is there any other passage in Scripture where head coverings for women are commanded? Could this be one of these debatable things that Paul tells us not to fight about but make up your own mind on the issue?
I don't think that Paul completed his thought in verse 16. In verse 17, Paul appears to change topics but does he really? In verse 16, he shows his disapproval of contentions within the church over head coverings and in the following verses about the Lord's Supper, he is upset about the fractious nature of the Corinthian church as shown by their practices in communion. I'm not sure that Paul is as concerned about doctrine in this section of the epistle (approximately Chapter 11) as he is about the Corinthians' contentious behavior.
An observation from my church. The two most submissive wives in the congregation (which is fairly small) do not wear head coverings. On the other hand, the two whose submission to their husbands I would see as the most questionable, conscientiously wear head coverings. The two who have the reality don't have the symbol and the other two have the symbol but not the reality. The former is definitely a better situation than the latter, although some would argue that all women should have both.
That’s how I see what Paul says there. I am not going to argue about it with you or anyone else. A question was asked and I answered it. If you don’t like the answer, live with it. So many people these days put their lives at risk just because they don’t like someone’s point of view. Very foolish, especially in person. I am old and literally don’t care any more. That guy the other day on video saying it would be the last mistake anyone ever made to stop a transgender from going into a women’s bathroom is one of the most inflammatory things I have ever heard one of those kind of people say. Why he hasn’t been arrested blows my mind.
Quote
“such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
Wonder if they thought about the spiritual value of what Paul was teaching..
2 Corinthians.😆😆
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.