Head covering question

[ohio jones]

I'd like to do this without argument so just be respectful of others. Thanks.

Tongues speaking has nothing to do with the OP head covering question. I think gracefortoday is being quite patient with us.

Doesn't look like all this tongues talk is going to get to a thread on tongues instead of this thread on a head covering ...

You were the first person to mention tongues in this thread (p. 3, bunny trailing your original bunny trail on baptism from p. 2), and now you complain that the thread has been bunny trailed?

If you want to be respectful of the OP and start a thread instead of continuing a bunny trail, you know how to do that.

[Swiss Bro]

Since we are back to topic I challenge you to listen to this mindblowing episode of the Naked Bible podcast and/or to read the scholarly paper attached thereto.

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/ ... s-1113-15/

In very broad strokes, it is argued convincingly that ancient Greek medical texts around the time of Paul‘s writing viewed the hair as some kind of testicle (!) and that this would have been the reason for Paul to advise for the headcovering, so as not to arouse the angels to repeat the sin of Gen. 6.

It would be interesting to have your thoughts if, even if you buy this theory, and given our modern knowledge that hair is not a testicle, the headcovering still should be worn by women today.

[Valerie]

Since we are back to topic I challenge you to listen to this mindblowing episode of the Naked Bible podcast and/or to read the scholarly paper attached thereto.

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/ ... s-1113-15/

In very broad strokes, it is argued convincingly that ancient Greek medical texts around the time of Paul‘s writing viewed the hair as some kind of testicle (!) and that this would have been the reason for Paul to advise for the headcovering, so as not to arouse the angels to repeat the sin of Gen. 6.

It would be interesting to have your thoughts if, even if you buy this theory, and given our modern knowledge that hair is not a testicle, the headcovering still should be worn by women today.

I have not listened yet but how strange!

This is the reason I don't believe women are necessarily being "disobedient" by not covering.
We have sat (those outside of CA) under pastors that apparently learned wherever they were educated, completely different theology, explanations, interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11. From the time I was a baby Christian, I was taught it was specific to an area that had temple prostitutes - it never occured to me then I was disobeying. I've heard other explanations regarding area customs, time customs, etc, they're not for ,"today" (like some say about tongues) so I just feel like we should not ascribe disobedience as the reason women in most Christian churches don't cover.

When my husband & I sought together for truth on the matter we really looked into it- having been taught incorrectly, and I know our own pastor at the time we went to him about it ,& the D & R interpretation, our pastor really questioned an actual covering. I distinctly remember him saying he does not see how a doily can be what the passage is talking about and he also, like many, thought her hair was the covering.

I know Charismatics would say if you say tongues are not for today, than you can't say a physical covering is either. Both are taught within 1 Corinthians 11-14.
So it seems unloving to accuse either understanding in a disrespectful way, if there truly is ignorance about either, and not intentional.

[Valerie]

From the most widely used Greek lexicon (Thayer):

A tongue, i. e. the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations.

In other words, a language, used by people. The definition of the words you are referring to drives the meaning of the passage. Using it for some kind of angelic language distorts the passage. You, or the Azusuza street people who cooked this up, are twisting the actual meaning of this. As the founder of the great Christian and Missionary Alliance A.B. Simpson is reported to have said about the tongues movement:

“I think there might be some of God in this” before largely concluding it was a distraction.”

We believe that the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit does indeed manifest. But he does so through holiness and a changed life.

My answer to this limited understanding is this:
1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Bible
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Apostle Paul laid out all that we should understand about the gift of tongues. Obviously by what he taught in 1 Corinthians 12-14- it is a "Spiritual " language. It is a "gift" those given it don't need false accusations hurled at them. As I have shared before, my husband received the gift when all alone while praying. It DID edify him just as Apostle Paul taught. He DID desire the gift having read Apostles Paul's teaching. He doesn't talk about it with others. He's about the least pretentious person you can meet- but NO ONE, including Satan, can take it away from him by telling him it was not real. .

I agree that Satan tried to counterfeit the REAL with the unreal. Who would despise gifts of the Spirit more??

I also do not appreciate the assumption that those who have gifts do not "love," like Churches who don't practice the gifts of the Spirit or lack faith in them. I have known many with gifts that love in a way that astounded me.
Apostle Paul doesn't say "Gifts OR live" but he did teach live is the more excellent way. Of course! But false accusations are not love either- as if anyone knows everyone who'ever had the gifts to discern true or false.
Let the Lord sort that out.

You cannot blame Christians who read 1 Corinthians 13-14 for believing a Church service is supposed to be like this,- so if they have faith to pursue that AND love, then I know Jesus is pleased. He was neither pleased with lack of love, nor lack of faith (in supernatural and certainly warned against blaspheming the Holy Spirit - when He performed the Supernatural He was falsely accused of being of the devil. Seems Satan can still do this against Believers.

[Valerie]

From the most widely used Greek lexicon (Thayer):

A tongue, i. e. the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations.

In other words, a language, used by people. The definition of the words you are referring to drives the meaning of the passage. Using it for some kind of angelic language distorts the passage. You, or the Azusuza street people who cooked this up, are twisting the actual meaning of this. As the founder of the great Christian and Missionary Alliance A.B. Simpson is reported to have said about the tongues movement:

“I think there might be some of God in this” before largely concluding it was a distraction.”

We believe that the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit does indeed manifest. But he does so through holiness and a changed life.

My answer to this limited understanding is this:
1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Bible
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Apostle Paul laid out all that we should understand about the gift of tongues. Obviously by what he taught in 1 Corinthians 12-14- it is a "Spiritual " language. It is a "gift" those given it don't need false accusations hurled at them. As I have shared before, my husband received the gift when all alone while praying. It DID edify him just as Apostle Paul taught. He DID desire the gift having read Apostles Paul's teaching. He doesn't talk about it with others. He's about the least pretentious person you can meet- but NO ONE, including Satan, can take it away from him by telling him it was not real. .

I agree that Satan tried to counterfeit the REAL with the unreal. Who would despise gifts of the Spirit more??

I also do not appreciate the assumption that those who have gifts do not "love," like Churches who don't practice the gifts of the Spirit or lack faith in them. I have known many with gifts that love in a way that astounded me.
Apostle Paul doesn't say "Gifts OR live" but he did teach live is the more excellent way. Of course! But false accusations are not love either- as if anyone knows everyone who'ever had the gifts to discern true or false.
Let the Lord sort that out.

You cannot blame Christians who read 1 Corinthians 13-14 for believing a Church service is supposed to be like this,- so if they have faith to pursue that AND love, then I know Jesus is pleased. He was neither pleased with lack of love, nor lack of faith (in supernatural and certainly warned against blaspheming the Holy Spirit - when He performed the Supernatural He was falsely accused of being of the devil. Seems Satan can still do this against Believers.

"Therefore, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers" (1 Corinthians 14:22"

I mean there's quite a bit that Apostle Paul teaches about it- those who say it's only a "foreign language" are dismissing much of what he taught. Don't want it? That's fine- pursue love is more important including loving those who desire the gifts out of obedience to the teaching about why we should decide it and the other gifts of the Spirit, prophecy being superior to tongues.

[Josh]

We see speaking in tongues in Acts when people heard the gospel in their own language.

We don’t see speaking gibberish anywhere in the NT. Part of having an “interpretation” means speaking in tongues - that is a foreign language - where someone can understand it.

[Valerie]

We see speaking in tongues in Acts when people heard the gospel in their own language.

We don’t see speaking gibberish anywhere in the NT. Part of having an “interpretation” means speaking in tongues - that is a foreign language - where someone can understand it.

Wrong. There is more than one kind- you ignore 1 Corinthians 12-14. Common mistake.
Tongues in Acts different purposes more than one purpose. Pray for the understanding rather than mistakes

You wonder why people question if Anabaptists truly can rightly divide the word of truth and trust they interpret all things correctly? Why people may start the seeking but then realize they are guessing at some things or perhaps blind to some things? Would we then want to trust the Spirit is enlightening them,? A child could understand the simple teachings, the milk, but then there is the meat.
I cannot pursue a group of willful blindness to the things of the faith, I can see they have a piece of the pie of course- and probably a better piece than most- but not the whole. Of course God will not judge us on knowledge alone, but teaching against Apostolic teaching, is sin IMHO.

See you are just as guilty as believing incorrect teachings as those have we n been taught incorrectly about covering. Covering is easy. Faith for gifts is challenging. Easy to dismiss and criticize.

[Soloist]

I would tend to believe that there are two kinds of tongues being referenced by Paul and in Acts.

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen either…
I have heard people claim that they’ve spoken in tongues, One recorded CD of someone singing in tongues, One person dropped a few random words during their song and looked “spiritual” when they did it. some randomly started uttering gibberish interrupting the pastor. He interpreted the gibberish to fit right in with his sermon.

I think Paul expresses fairly clearly that it needs to be done orderly.
I don’t really see that much by the early church on speaking in tongues, so I’m not really sure what to think on it.
I don’t know about this unusual view on head coverings. It seems a little bizarre. I don’t see indications by the early church writers that they’ve viewed it as something like a reproductive organ.
I do see that they believed it was symbol, for modesty, and headship. I see if anything, the early church writers pushed towards larger coverings, ironically, very similar to today.
there was some debate, obviously present as to whether unmarried were supposed to cover. And it seemed like most of the discussion was centered around outside of the church.
I think the scriptures clearly state that a woman should be covered while praying or prophesying. By limited application, this should be clear for in the church. By secondary application could argue they could put a head covering on when out in town praying. The inverse is true.

My general conclusion is that if a church requires the woman to cover all the time they should likewise require the man to remain without a hat all the time.
Most churches seem to be somewhat flexible on both.
Nobody really seems to question outside of one old lady we met once that women don’t have to head cover in the shower.
Likewise, no one really seems bothered by a male wearing a hat if they’re under the sun all day.

[Judas Maccabeus]

We see speaking in tongues in Acts when people heard the gospel in their own language.

We don’t see speaking gibberish anywhere in the NT. Part of having an “interpretation” means speaking in tongues - that is a foreign language - where someone can understand it.

Wrong. There is more than one kind- you ignore 1 Corinthians 12-14. Common mistake.
Tongues in Acts different purposes more than one purpose. Pray for the understanding rather than mistakes

You wonder why people question if Anabaptists truly can rightly divide the word of truth and trust they interpret all things correctly? Why people may start the seeking but then realize they are guessing at some things or perhaps blind to some things? Would we then want to trust the Spirit is enlightening them,? A child could understand the simple teachings, the milk, but then there is the meat.
I cannot pursue a group of willful blindness to the things of the faith, I can see they have a piece of the pie of course- and probably a better piece than most- but not the whole. Of course God will not judge us on knowledge alone, but teaching against Apostolic teaching, is sin IMHO.

See you are just as guilty as believing incorrect teachings as those have we n been taught incorrectly about covering. Covering is easy. Faith for gifts is challenging. Easy to dismiss and criticize.

You simply continue to ignore inconvenient passages that refute your position.

1 Cor 14:21-22. 21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Which quotes:

Isiah 28:11. 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Paul is clearly saying here this (tongue speaking, more correctly language speaking) is that (a fulfillment of a prophecy to unbelieving Israel) I do, and cannot understand the eccentric understand that the tongue speaking movement has. To produce some sort of babbling is clearly not a fulfillment of this prophecy.

The tongue speaking movement dates only from the 1900-1910 period. It is very new in the context of Christian Theology.

Did I not hear someone a couple of topics ago pushing Eastern Orthodox as the one true church? Now it is tongues. They are inconsistent with each other. I could give some advice here, but running after the latest new thing will seldom result in peace with God and your church. I cannot fathom how someone will find peace in this manner.

[Sudsy]

Perhaps the next thing we should discuss on this head covering thread besides speaking in tongues would be the holy kiss and if this, too, is just an NT practise or for all time. It appears to be a command as much as other verses are thought to be commands. And then perhaps if men raising holy hands in prayer is just a NT practise or not. It is interesting to me how obedience can be so important and emphasized but just what is required to be obedient and what is not can't be agreed on. I guess we'll never have that literal in practise and belief 'glorious church without spot or wrinkle'.

I still think these should all be kept as separate threads and disagree that it was me that got this one off unto speaking in tongues.

With that said and since we are where we are on this thread I will respond to this previous input that -

The tongue speaking movement dates only from the 1900-1910 period. It is very new in the context of Christian Theology.

Yes and the text to support this is in Joel chapter 2 which is interpreted as believing we are in the last days where God will pour out His Spirit in both male and females in ministering ways. Pentecostals and Salvationists and others don't follow the early church NT restrictions of women in minstry as this verse, to them and to me, means that God is using all of us to build His Kingdom in these last days. At least He wants to.