MennoNet.com

Sudsy wrote:

Heirbyadoption wrote:Could some semi-Greek-literate explain for some of the rest of us how 1 Tim. 2:8 is a command, rather than Paul simply expressing desire? I occasionally lift hands, but based on the various concordances and lexicons on my shelves and online that I've been able to peruse, I've never understood the text and Paul's language to support it as a command, as is the teaching of the veiling. Perhaps I've been in error all this time, at least intellectually?

Question - if it is Paul's desire and not a command, then it must also be Paul's desire to continue with what he said about how women should dress and do good works and keep silent, right ? In other places Paul would say, 'I say ----- not the Lord'. Are we then suggesting in Paul's reference here to worship that what Paul said in this text cannot be used in literal application in what he says when he begins a text with what he desires to occur ?

Josh wrote:The Bible is not, generally, a book demanding we engage in unreasonable rituals of no value. I do not see a principle in scripture that a man can't talk to God when he's by himself outside chopping wood in freezing weather, or that a woman can't sing and pray to God when in the shower.

I do see a principle for order in gatherings of believers to worship. If believers lack heated buildings and have to meet in the woods in the dead of winter, then perhaps the best solution is to just let the women do all the praying and prophesying.

Valerie wrote:

lesterb wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:Feel free to try explaining the passage I quoted verse by verse, that would be more helpful. I really don't think I'm trying to twist anything. It would be interesting to see if those who practice head covering could come to agreement on how it is to be understood. Try focusing on the verse instead of claims about other people's motivations.

This was aimed at Valerie, I know. And she can answer it separately if she wants. But I thought I'd throw in my understanding of this, for what it's worth.

Norman Geisler said one time that the problem with a lot of people is that they spend so much time reading between the lines of scripture that they ignore the lines themselves. I find it a bit frustrating how that some people tend to spend so much time in dissecting and analyzing what is fairly clearly stated. I think they manufacture their own confusion.

3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.

I’ve explained my interpretation of this earlier in this thread. This is Paul’s thesis, or his topic sentence, and leads me to believe that the rest of the passage should be interpreted in light of this.
God [head of] Christ
Christ [head of] man
Man [head of] woman

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head.

Men should show deference to their head by uncovering it in times of prayer and prophesy. Note that covering the head cannot apply to the hair or all Christian men would need to shave their heads. Nor does it seem likely that it means a weather protection head covering, since that wouldn’t really work in some climates. Anyway, throughout this passage the idea of covering assumes a recognizeable symbol, which a weather protection doesn’t really supply.

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…

He head is man, and especially her husband or father (if she is single). It also dishonors the whole principle of headship if she doesn’t cover.

…since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off.

This assumes that the woman feels that it would be a disgrace for her to have her hair shaved off. Which is why women in general will wear a wig if they lose their natural hair. This again shows that the hair is not the covering in focus because if she isn’t covered, then she should cut off all her hair. If the hair is the covering, then it is already gone.

But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.

Again, Paul assumes that it is disgraceful for a woman to have all her hair cut off.

7 A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory

This also makes the most sense if we realize that we are talking about a covering that has special significance, such as the Jewish prayer cap.

but woman is man’s glory. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.

Refers to the order of creation as one reason for the headship process.

9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.

ditto

10 This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The covering should be a symbol that is understood by onlookers, not something like a toque or a bandana.

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.

In all of this, men should not take advantage of their position in God’s order by lording it over the woman. Rather, the Christian life, and the Christian home is a team effort.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Rhetorical question: assumed answer is NO

14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him,

Rhetorical question: assumed answer is YES

15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

Rhetorical question: assumed answer is YES

For her hair is given to her as a covering.

This covering is not talking about the symbol covering but her “natural glory covering.” It is part of her appeal to man and is to be kept for her husband. This is part of the headship emphasis.

16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.

Don’t bother arguing about this, because this is the only custom we have as the church of God.

Thank you lesterb, I think this was very well explained- verse by verse-
It seems though even if it can be explained and accepted this way- the ESV attributes to a limited time & culture which is why I started the thread-
At this point though I feel some are so grieved by the discussion I feel I perhaps should never have brought it up?

Valerie wrote:The church we've been attending switched over some time ago from NIV to ESV- I wasn't familiar with ESV (I prefer New King James) but they had a GIANT print edition so my husband being so handicapped visually, we purchased it there at 50% off-

I was reading 1 Corinthians 11 in this translation- specifically on headcoverings-
in verses 5 thru 13, they replaced the word 'woman' with 'wife'.

Then comes the footnote-

Greek gune. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context. In verses 5-13, the Greek word gune is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first century. And then the footnote to 'angels' in vs 10 it says "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report".


What? Is this an example of blatant error, ignorance, or deception? I don't know-
In other words, those of us who cover are simply 'misinformed' because apparently this was a 1st century practice for 'married' women?

I feel compelled to email one of the elders in the church about this- I do see women in the church that wear a covering but probably can count them on 2 hands (and obviously some of them are or were Mennonite, by the way they are dressed).

Anyone familiar enough with ESV and or Greek that cares to speak into this? Or just speak into this regarding what they know about it?

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:49 pm Good one, Outsider.

It is a myth that persists that Orthodox who wear wigs shave their heads. They don’t. They just wear wigs to cover up their own hair.

Heirbyadoption wrote:Could some semi-Greek-literate explain for some of the rest of us how 1 Tim. 2:8 is a command, rather than Paul simply expressing desire? I occasionally lift hands, but based on the various concordances and lexicons on my shelves and online that I've been able to peruse, I've never understood the text and Paul's language to support it as a command, as is the teaching of the veiling. Perhaps I've been in error all this time, at least intellectually?

Outsider wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:39 pmOrthodox Jewish Synagogue where they still practice the ancient Corinthian tradition of covering their women's heads so they won't be mistaken for temple harlots.