Both progressive and traditional types of Christians blatantly disobey the Bible... and this example about men and women proves it.

[GaryA]

Start here to find an answer:

1 Corinthians 11:

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

What is missing is actually in the realm of the plainly obvious - which is indicated to us in this verse.

If we cannot see or understand what 'nature' is trying to teach us, then we know for sure that Satan has made great advances in deception, deflection, etc. - blinding us to the truth that God would have us to know and understand.

If we can no longer comprehend why men and women should be different in appearance according to the unique distinction that God set forth at Creation --- we are in a bad shape for sure!

 

[PennEd]

It seems like you’re saying that the opinions of others determine whether a person’s choice of hair length is sinful. I suspect that’s not what you mean.

Yeah, that was a little too muddled.

It was about if someone thinks something they are doing is sinful, even though a more mature Christian knows it is not, then to them, it IS a sin.

 

[Blik]

Christ unites and saves, Paul divides. In every thread i see, when Paul is mentioned, division is certain to follow. Now why is that? Blessing

Luke 12:51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.

 

[GaryA]

Why do you think this is so?

1) the image of God
2) the natural use
3) the protection of women
4) the prevention of abominable thoughts in the minds of men

Some might think that last one is a joke; however, if you understand just how much God hates this type of thing...

Guys - have you ever seen a woman off in the distance - and, then the 'visual' got the imagination to going - then, you discover the woman is really a man?

Now, you might say:

"lust, lust, shame, shame"

Well sure - but, you missed the point - that kind of abomination is so hated by God that it would be far better if it were a woman.

Why do you think lot and others offered their daughters instead of allowing sodomy?

I wouldn't offer my daughter to anyone in that kind of situation - I think I would fight to the death to protect her while trying to avoid the unthinkable abomination as well.

(Please understand the context.)

However, I believe I understand - from God's point of view - why He hates it so much.

As bad as it sounds, abuse of the "natural use" is far better than abuse of the "unnatural use"...

(Of course, I am for no abuse at all.)

Getting back to the start of this discussion - even thoughts that ultimately even loosely tie in to that kind of abomination - God hates.

In other words, God would rather a man lust after a woman (full-blown, in his mind) than to see the above scenario play out (not even full-blown).

5) other things I probably just cannot remember at this time...

 

[PennEd]

If we cannot see or understand what 'nature' is trying to teach us, then we know for sure that Satan has made great advances in deception, deflection, etc. - blinding us to the truth that God would have us to know and understand.

If we can no longer comprehend why men and women should be different in appearance according to the unique distinction that God set forth at Creation --- we are in a bad shape for sure!

This is what I know for certain Gary. Neither you, nor I, nor ANYBODY else, has everything exactly right.

Aside from the core Christian doctrines, there is massive disagreement on just about every issue. And no one person or denomination has everything right.


1 Corinthians 13:12
New King James Version


12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know IN PART, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

If Paul himself only knew in part, why do we think we know in entirety?

So on this issue, and many others, you may be right, and you may have it wrong.

Some believe the covering is the hair itself, some believe it’s a cultural thing, others believe something totally different.

There are almost ZERO other NT passages dealing with this to corroborate any position, and the OT passages have to do with men NOT cutting their hair.

 

[GaryA]

There are almost ZERO other NT passages dealing with this to corroborate any position, and the OT passages have to do with men NOT cutting their hair.

And, the first obvious difference is - OT vs NT - OC vs NC - which may be significant.

 

[GaryA]

This is what I know for certain Gary. Neither you, nor I, nor ANYBODY else, has everything exactly right.

I never assume I have everything exactly right.

However, I do try to get as close as I can...

 

[Amanuensis]

I am new here. Please help me unpack this, and tell me why do you think most ignore this part of the Bible? First, here is some art I made. It's based upon my wife, wearing a head covering as she prays and prophesies.

View attachment 240825​

It looks like we all cherry-pick the Bible. Even those of us that consider ourselves to be hardcore Bible believing Christians of the traditionalist type. We like to point out how progressive Christians deconstruct, deform, or dismiss certain scriptures. It is strange that most of us western Christians do the same thing with the first part of 1 Corinthians 11.

1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given [a]to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.​

The Corinth Church was out of line because they were not following the traditions that Paul previously taught them. He sent a letter reminding them that men should not cover their heads and women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy. He also had instructions about the Lord's Supper. This is not about fashion nor food... but liturgy and proper worship.

In verse 16, it is written that the churches of God do not have a custom of a woman praying with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d. So for centuries after Paul's letter women covered their heads in church... all the way until the sexual revolution and the feminist movement starting in the 1960's. Now, only certain denominations follow the instructions. Most Western churches ignore these holy scriptures. The people I talk to about this mostly have never heard of it. Or, they pretend that the scriptures mean other things, like it is about women having long hair, or that the letter was ONLY for the Corinthians, or it was a cultural thing of that time, or some other untrue thing. They skip that part of the scripture and only give attention to the part about the Lord's Supper.

Here is a pretty good article that explains the background and history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

You might think that it is not a big deal if a guy wears a ball cap in church or if a woman does not cover her head. But head covering is not something Paul briefly touched on casually with a single sentence, like the "holy kiss" or "drink a little wine to help your stomach". See how Paul elaborated on the theology of it. The fact that Paul wrote that all the churches practiced this means that it is not merely an instruction unique to the area of Corinth. ADDITIONALLY, and more importantly, the fact that he connected this practice with creation, the natural order, and the Angels makes it a universality. After all, Angels are every time and place. THIS IS NO SMALL THING. A man not covering his head and a woman covering her head, this is an act of worship that shows that we are submitted to God.

It seems that we have now set aside holy scripture, mainly for feminist pride. And this distortion or deconstruction of holy scripture for an agenda has made the way for gay pride to do the same thing. Do we accept the writings of Paul, or just the parts we like? So, was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul? If we listen to Paul when it comes to the gifts of the spirit, the Lord's Supper, and on and on, why not about head coverings?

And the next thing you know, many Christians will cherry-pick the words of Christ, and ignore His definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). Wait, that is already happening....

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Read the way it is written it answers your question.

It was a Jewish custom he was referring to to make a point about something. He made sure to clarify that this was not a custom that NT churches had to do. Nor any other Jewish customs like circumcision or other customs that had a spiritual meaning behind them.

He could teach about the spiritual meaning behind circumcision and then say, But we do not have this custom for the churches of God and that is not my point.

 

[Amanuensis]

If we cannot see or understand what 'nature' is trying to teach us, then we know for sure that Satan has made great advances in deception, deflection, etc. - blinding us to the truth that God would have us to know and understand.

If we can no longer comprehend why men and women should be different in appearance according to the unique distinction that God set forth at Creation --- we are in a bad shape for sure!

A man or woman's hair both grow long by nature. I think people misunderstand this verse as if a man has naturally short hair. It's one of those really dumb mistakes people make with interpretations.

 

[HorseSoldier]

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Read the way it is written it answers your question.

It was a Jewish custom he was referring to to make a point about something. He made sure to clarify that this was not a custom that NT churches had to do. Nor any other Jewish customs like circumcision or other customs that had a spiritual meaning behind them.

He could teach about the spiritual meaning behind circumcision and then say, But we do not have this custom for the churches of God and that is not my point.

No, you get it backwards. There is no custom of a woman praying or prophesying with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d. From verse 13, Paul writes : " Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d ? ". To which Paul writes in verse 16 , that the churches of God have no such custom... that is, no custom of a woman being u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d when she prays or prophecies. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

After he talks about a man NOT covering his head and a woman covering her head, and the reasons why, and how nature itself demonstrates this, Paul then writes about the proper way to do the Lord's Supper, and how we should not receive it in an unworthy manner, due to unrepentant sin. These things that he teaches us do not relate to fashion, hair, or food and drink, or obsolete Jewish customs from the OT. It is about proper worship for the New Testament church and the meaning behind it. It is about liturgy.

Your misunderstanding is common. It is a common mistake for those that have a preconceived notion about what it means, due to their lack of understanding and practice. It is the fault of the pastors and elders more than the laity. Feminism and the sexual revolution of the West have done a good job covering this about head coverings. But once you see it, you cannot unsee it. And you also see that most of us in the West are not obeying this instruction for proper worship. In our pride, we have ignored it, and in doing so we set an unholy example for progressive minded Christians to also ignore the holy scriptures that they wish to ignore, like husband headship, marriage between a man and woman, adultery, the sin of sodomy, to name a few.

 

[Jesusfollower]

Luke 12:51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.

Thank you Blik for the quotation you are right about this, Christ teachings and actions does cause division amongst men who do not believe in his words it is also cross references in Matthew 10: 34-39 (NKJV)

34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

I was speaking more about the division between believers in christ, I will explain fully probably in a new thread with full scriptures, I am awaiting the answer from DavidTree,

Peace,

JF

 

[Nehemiah6]

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Read the way it is written it answers your question.

Just because Pau did not say "we have no such custom of uncovered heads" does not mean that it was not implied. A custom is a practice, and Paul was speaking about a Christian practice which was being ignored by some in the church at Corinth. Since he mentioned "the churches of God" it should be clear that all the New Testament churches had the custom or practice of women with heads covered and men with heads uncovered (unlike the Jewish custom of men covering their heads). If Paul meant to teach that the long hair of women was all that was required, he would not have used the word "custom".

 

[Mem]

The covering of hair or not covering of hair is precisely in line with Paul's other comments about dressing modestly.

IOW do not stand out by what you wear. Don't make YOURSELF be the focus...instead let GOD and his message be the focus and not what you are wearing or not wearing. Especially during prayer or prophesying.

Paul was forever repeating himself. How everyone comes up with a completely new theology about what everyone should do as some sort of new legalism is beyond me.

This seems simple and all so unassuming. It is lacking that grandiose offense that makes things so much more exciting! ... er, wait....
... aha! I see what you did there, that was entirely your point!

...it does seem a bit ironic, doesn't it, counterproductive even, showing off a covered head?

 

[Mem]

 

[Amanuensis]

Just because Pau did not say "we have no such custom of uncovered heads" does not mean that it was not implied. A custom is a practice, and Paul was speaking about a Christian practice which was being ignored by some in the church at Corinth. Since he mentioned "the churches of God" it should be clear that all the New Testament churches had the custom or practice of women with heads covered and men with heads uncovered (unlike the Jewish custom of men covering their heads). If Paul meant to teach that the long hair of women was all that was required, he would not have used the word "custom".

By definition a custom is something people do, not something people "don't do."

Even if it were a custom among the Corinth church copied by the Jews and even if Paul is explaining what it means, he is still making a clear statement at the end that it is not a commandment nor something that is to be considered a world wide church law.

That is why he makes the statement. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Below is a small portion of something Gordon Fee wrote about it:

Even though Paul has now spent considerable effort on this issue, the very nature of his argumentation reveals that it is not something about which he has great passion. Indeed, there is nothing else quite like this in his extant letters, where he argues for maintaining a custom, let alone predicating a large part of the argument on shame, propriety, and custom. Two final observations, therefore, need to be made. First, the very fact that Paul argues in this way, and that even at the end he does not give a commandment, suggests that such a “church custom,” although not thereby unimportant for the Corinthians, is not to be raised to canon law. The very “customary” nature of the problem, which could be argued in this way in a basically monolithic cultural environment, makes it nearly impossible to transfer “across the board” to the multifaceted cultures in which the church finds itself today—even if we knew exactly what it was we were to transfer, which we do not. But in each culture there are surely those modes of dress that are appropriate and those that are not.

Fee, Gordon D.. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 586). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

[Amanuensis]

No, you get it backwards. There is no custom of a woman praying or prophesying with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d. From verse 13, Paul writes : " Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d ? ". To which Paul writes in verse 16 , that the churches of God have no such custom... that is, no custom of a woman being u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d when she prays or prophecies. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

After he talks about a man NOT covering his head and a woman covering her head, and the reasons why, and how nature itself demonstrates this, Paul then writes about the proper way to do the Lord's Supper, and how we should not receive it in an unworthy manner, due to unrepentant sin. These things that he teaches us do not relate to fashion, hair, or food and drink, or obsolete Jewish customs from the OT. It is about proper worship for the New Testament church and the meaning behind it. It is about liturgy.

Your misunderstanding is common. It is a common mistake for those that have a preconceived notion about what it means, due to their lack of understanding and practice. It is the fault of the pastors and elders more than the laity. Feminism and the sexual revolution of the West have done a good job covering this about head coverings. But once you see it, you cannot unsee it. And you also see that most of us in the West are not obeying this instruction for proper worship. In our pride, we have ignored it, and in doing so we set an unholy example for progressive minded Christians to also ignore the holy scriptures that they wish to ignore, like husband headship, marriage between a man and woman, adultery, the sin of sodomy, to name a few.

View attachment 240876

At this point I do not see that as the normal way to read that in English. I also believe that scholars like Gordon Fee who are expert in the manuscripts and the Greek are more credible concerning how to read that statement and he also agrees with how I understood it when I read it. I don't think your theory is valid, either in Greek or in English.

After all that Paul has taught about not putting Jewish customs on gentiles to think he would shift completely and demand women adopt a questionable custom that no one can even define exactly what it looks like, is obvious that one has made a mistake in interpreting authorial intent.

You can't even know how to enforce that custom. Your best guess is a guess. And you are going to suggest that God is going to judge women who don't do it right along with sodomites?

This passage is too subject to mistakes in personal interpretations to warrant your condemnation on those who disagree with you.
You should take a step back, and spend time reading from expert scholars about all the many things that have been written about this text and fear God and shrink back in horror at the possibility that you made some mistakes in interpretation and were condemning everyone else.

 

[WayneNSO]

At this point I do not see that as the normal way to read that in English. I also believe that scholars like Gordon Fee who are expert in the manuscripts and the Greek are more credible concerning how to read that statement and he also agrees with how I understood it when I read it. I don't think your theory is valid, either in Greek or in English.

After all that Paul has taught about not putting Jewish customs on gentiles to think he would shift completely and demand women adopt a questionable custom that no one can even define exactly what it looks like, is obvious that one has made a mistake in interpreting authorial intent.

You can't even know how to enforce that custom. Your best guess is a guess. And you are going to suggest that God is going to judge women who don't do it right along with sodomites?

This passage is too subject to mistakes in personal interpretations to warrant your condemnation on those who disagree with you.
You should take a step back, and spend time reading from expert scholars about all the many things that have been written about this text and fear God and shrink back in horror at the possibility that you made some mistakes in interpretation and were condemning everyone else.

Just because someone writes something in a commentary does not mean it is the truth. If that was the case, all commentaries from "so called experts" would all say the same thing, but they do not.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on the Whole Bible:

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, 1Co_11:16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

 

[Runningman]

Just because someone writes something in a commentary does not mean it is the truth. If that was the case, all commentaries from "so called experts" would all say the same thing, but they do not.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on the Whole Bible:

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, 1Co_11:16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

Like all commentaries, they aren’t necessarily accurate regardless of how well-known or renowned the author is.

We are talking about customs and traditions here. Customs and traditions can change. There isn’t anything wrong with being a traditionalist so if a congregation wants to wear head coverings then they should do so. If a congregation doesn’t want to wear a head covering then they don’t have to. That’s essentially why I got out of what Matthew Henry said, but he takes a literalist’s approach to interpreting the passage in question.

It’s actually much deeper and symbolic than literal head coverings. I’ll explain why in a later post.

 

[Runningman]

What’s curious to me is they Paul seems to teach that not following this tradition will cause contention. Why doesn’t he just teach people to grow thicker skin instead?

Victim mentality and blaming others for contention is a problem. There is no contention when people just accept that not everyone wants to wear a head covering. In this case, head coverings are clearly not a command from God, but rather just part of Paul’s theology for what he thinks is proper for churches. Hence why he calls them traditions.

 

[jb]

Welcome!

I do love looking at your "art creations," they are always so filled with love and grace!