Headship Series

[Outsider]

It's a form of ritual purity. As is abstaining from "sexual immorality".

That I don't follow.

I don't understand what you don't follow. The equation of head-covering with sexual sin, or the notion of "ritual purity"?

Either way, I count both as ritual purity, and the reason I equate them is that (to the world) they would both seem to be "victimless" crimes. To the natural man, they would seem to have no effect in the "real" world.

Like not eating blood, or strangled things.

All of the acts of ritual purity Christians are commanded to observe are carried over from Judaic law and Judaic ritual and order.

Keeping women silent in the Temple and the Synagogue, and head-covering, are practices that had been part of Jewish worship since its inception. Orthodox synagogues to this day don't even allow women to sit with the men, they have their own space- just like they did in the Temple. Women had to cover their heads, and do to this day in Orthodox synagogues.

It wasn't a practice that was particular to Corinth. It was practiced in all the synagogues. Which is where Paul, and all the apostles and their disciples, went first in every city and town they went and where nearly all the first believers were found.

What is particular about Corinth is that there were some who were disputing the traditional Jewish practice.

In other words, how can a head-covering be called a headcovering when it might only cover one little spot on the back of the head ? Does that speak to angels as a headcovering ?

Its a symbol. Size or style doesn't matter, as long as it's designed to cover the head.

What puzzles me is that some who wear some sort of headcovering, be it ever so small that it covers little of the head, will also be baptised in water by sprinkling when water baptism means immersion and symbolically as Paul says in Romans 6:4 symbolizes being dead to sin, buried and rising to new life.

My conscience is more comfortable with the full-immersion method. But if someone was baptized in the Sahara deasert, I would hope God would accept the token of a sprinkle (as the Priests would sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice over the people). So, I'm comfortable saying that if your conscience is good with the method of baptism you receive, I am.

Full-immersion baptism for ritual cleanliness was also available at the Temple in Jerusalem I have heard.

Just saying, if our practises are going to be more literally applied would it not seem to be more obedient to have a first century head covering that really did cover most of the head and a water baptism by immersion that pictured what Romans 6:4 says ?

If that's what your conscience tells you to do, do it that way. As long as the law is fulfilled in practice, your conscience can be trusted.

Regarding women prophesying. What does this look like in today's Anabaptist church. When I was a youngster in a Pentecostal church women, at times, would stand up in the congregation and pass on some words they believed the Holy Spirit was giving them to deliver.

And, obviously, so were some in the first congregations. The Gentile converts had not been raised to Jewish discipline in worship.

So, really they were instructing both men and women with these words. One can't both keep silent and prophesy, right ? And also, does wearing a headcovering not allow women to lead in prayer or only pray silently ? I find this too a bit confusing in how it is practised.

Jesus didn't only teach in the Synogogues, did he?

[Sudsy]

It's a form of ritual purity. As is abstaining from "sexual immorality".

That I don't follow.

I don't understand what you don't follow. The equation of head-covering with sexual sin, or the notion of "ritual purity"?

Either way, I count both as ritual purity, and the reason I equate them is that (to the world) they would both seem to be "victimless" crimes. To the natural man, they would seem to have no effect in the "real" world.

Like not eating blood, or strangled things.

All of the acts of ritual purity Christians are commanded to observe are carried over from Judaic law and Judaic ritual and order.

Keeping women silent in the Temple and the Synagogue, and head-covering, are practices that had been part of Jewish worship since its inception. Orthodox synagogues to this day don't even allow women to sit with the men, they have their own space- just like they did in the Temple. Women had to cover their heads, and do to this day in Orthodox synagogues.

It wasn't a practice that was particular to Corinth. It was practiced in all the synagogues. Which is where Paul, and all the apostles and their disciples, went first in every city and town they went and where nearly all the first believers were found.

What is particular about Corinth is that there were some who were disputing the traditional Jewish practice.

Thanks for your explanation.

In other words, how can a head-covering be called a headcovering when it might only cover one little spot on the back of the head ? Does that speak to angels as a headcovering ?

Its a symbol. Size or style doesn't matter, as long as it's designed to cover the head.

It is interesting to me how we decide what is a legitimate symbol and what is not. Your thoughts on the following -

Literally speaking a headcovering sitting on a small portion of the head is not covering the head. So, if I understand you correctly, since some have reduced it to an opaque cap sitting on the back of the head, strings attached or not, that literally covers nothing of the head but that doesn't matter because the angels know whatever is used as a headcovering and what it stands for ? They know but the vast majority of people who do not wear one, don't know what it stands for. Then since the headcovering does not need be a literal headcovering just a symbol, then one could wear a tatoo on one's head to represent a headcovering, or does a headcovering need be made of some material ?

Then is it not OK for a woman to wear pants as long as they don't have a fly they don't look like men's pants ? In other words, women can wear sweat pants or any pants without zippers and not be wearing man's apparel, right ?

What puzzles me is that some who wear some sort of headcovering, be it ever so small that it covers little of the head, will also be baptised in water by sprinkling when water baptism means immersion and symbolically as Paul says in Romans 6:4 symbolizes being dead to sin, buried and rising to new life.

My conscience is more comfortable with the full-immersion method. But if someone was baptized in the Sahara deasert, I would hope God would accept the token of a sprinkle (as the Priests would sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice over the people). So, I'm comfortable saying that if your conscience is good with the method of baptism you receive, I am.

So, regarding our conscience making us comfortable, if a woman has nothing bothering her conscience in not wearing a headcovering then she is sinning but if she is baptised in water and not by full immersion and nothing bothers her conscience about being sprinkled and not immersed that is not sinning ? I remember when I was in a Baptist church how Christians who came from churches that sprinkled requested to be re-baptised by immersion as their conscience caused them to believe their baptism did not reflect their dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ, so they were re-baptised.

Full-immersion baptism for ritual cleanliness was also available at the Temple in Jerusalem I have heard.

Just saying, if our practises are going to be more literally applied would it not seem to be more obedient to have a first century head covering that really did cover most of the head and a water baptism by immersion that pictured what Romans 6:4 says ?

If that's what your conscience tells you to do, do it that way. As long as the law is fulfilled in practice, your conscience can be trusted.

Regarding women prophesying. What does this look like in today's Anabaptist church. When I was a youngster in a Pentecostal church women, at times, would stand up in the congregation and pass on some words they believed the Holy Spirit was giving them to deliver.

And, obviously, so were some in the first congregations. The Gentile converts had not been raised to Jewish discipline in worship.

Really ? I could be mis-understanding you here. Are you saying this is why Paul said to keep silent ? My reading of the text was that they were asking questions of their husbands during the meeting and Paul said that was to be done at home.

So, really they were instructing both men and women with these words. One can't both keep silent and prophesy, right ? And also, does wearing a headcovering not allow women to lead in prayer or only pray silently ? I find this too a bit confusing in how it is practised.

Jesus didn't only teach in the Synogogues, did he?

Sorry, I don't get your point here.

[Outsider]

Its a symbol. Size or style doesn't matter, as long as it's designed to cover the head.

since some have reduced it to an opaque cap sitting on the back of the head, strings attached or not, that literally covers nothing of the head but that doesn't matter because the angels know whatever is used as a headcovering and what it stands for ?

It's a piece of clothing designed to we worn on the head. That is a definition of a "head-covering".

What puzzles me is that some who wear some sort of headcovering, be it ever so small that it covers little of the head, will also be baptised in water by sprinkling when water baptism means immersion and symbolically as Paul says in Romans 6:4 symbolizes being dead to sin, buried and rising to new life.

Baptisim by sprinkling is like when the Priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the people. It covered their sins. As Christ's blood covers our sin.

1 Peter:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ

I remember when I was in a Baptist church how Christians who came from churches that sprinkled requested to be re-baptised by immersion as their conscience caused them to believe their baptism did not reflect their dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ, so they were re-baptised.

A lot of people feel that's the only way. I was raised to believe that.

Really ? I could be mis-understanding you here. Are you saying this is why Paul said to keep silent ? My reading of the text was that they were asking questions of their husbands during the meeting and Paul said that was to be done at home.

33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

I think we can be pretty sure the problems weren't with the Jewish believers- Paul's continual struggle with them was to NOT place the heavy burdens of converting to Judaism on the Gentile believers.

The text says for them to ask "their own husbands"- which would imply that they were asking someone other than their husbands.

Jesus didn't only teach in the Synogogues, did he?

Sorry, I don't get your point here.

I'm just saying, as did the video series, that there is a world of work that women can engage in- outside of the assembly. Teaching women, children, witnessing to one and all.

[Sudsy]

Its a symbol. Size or style doesn't matter, as long as it's designed to cover the head.

since some have reduced it to an opaque cap sitting on the back of the head, strings attached or not, that literally covers nothing of the head but that doesn't matter because the angels know whatever is used as a headcovering and what it stands for ?

It's a piece of clothing designed to we worn on the head. That is a definition of a "head-covering".

What puzzles me is that some who wear some sort of headcovering, be it ever so small that it covers little of the head, will also be baptised in water by sprinkling when water baptism means immersion and symbolically as Paul says in Romans 6:4 symbolizes being dead to sin, buried and rising to new life.

Baptisim by sprinkling is like when the Priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the people. It covered their sins. As Christ's blood covers our sin.

1 Peter:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ

I remember when I was in a Baptist church how Christians who came from churches that sprinkled requested to be re-baptised by immersion as their conscience caused them to believe their baptism did not reflect their dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ, so they were re-baptised.

A lot of people feel that's the only way. I was raised to believe that.

Really ? I could be mis-understanding you here. Are you saying this is why Paul said to keep silent ? My reading of the text was that they were asking questions of their husbands during the meeting and Paul said that was to be done at home.

33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

I think we can be pretty sure the problems weren't with the Jewish believers- Paul's continual struggle with them was to NOT place the heavy burdens of converting to Judaism on the Gentile believers.

The text says for them to ask "their own husbands"- which would imply that they were asking someone other than their husbands.

Jesus didn't only teach in the Synogogues, did he?

Sorry, I don't get your point here.

I'm just saying, as did the video series, that there is a world of work that women can engage in- outside of the assembly. Teaching women, children, witnessing to one and all.

I disagree with those who have changed a head covering symbol from what it was in the early church era which was more like a shawl and also disagree that the sprinkling of blood OT practise which had to be done over and over to cover sin is the same as the one time only immersion symbol that our sins have been washed away forever but I will leave it at that as others will live by their own convictions as they are not salvation issues.

Regarding women teaching and preaching I have experienced first hand how God has worked through a woman pastor to further His Kingdom and the salvation of my immediate and extended family so if someone choses to believe that this 'silent' text means she was sinning all this time, then so be it.

Thankyou for your responses.