Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | T'oma | 203927 | ||
Tamara, first off, allow me to state – you ask interesting questions. Although, I was tempted to take on all of them, this is the only one I have time to respond to presently. During my first Bible School training, years ago, we were encouraged to look for answers to our questions in our main text-book – the Bible. Too often we tend to grab a portion of Scripture and build a doctrine around some isolated words. By ignoring the rest of Scripture, anyone can prove Scripture says thus and thus … For example, take that Scripture I mentioned yesterday (Is War Biblical) about Jesus’ instructions not to protest against war because He and His Father say wars are a must. (Matt. 24:6) By checking out other Scriptures where that Greek word for MUST (Strong’s number 1163) is used and you learn that God demands whatever is stated to be accomplished, and will happen …period. Once in great while, Scriptures mistranslates a word, like the phrase using CURSE in Job, where his wife told him to curse God and die. Why is that same Hebrew word (Strongs 1288) translated BLESS, or its equivalent, in the hundred plus other verses? Why didn’t the author of Job use the curse (Strongs 7043) like other verses used in that situation, if he meant for us to believe Job’s wife didn’t mean for Job to Bless God and die? I find it interesting that BLESS word is ONLY translated CURSE in the book of Job, don't you? Checking out what the rest of Scripture says about covering one’s head and one discovers just the opposite of what is being taught. For one thing, you’ll discover it doesn’t mean HAT. Covering your HEAD means covering everything above the neck. In the same chapter you’re asking about, Paul wrote that it was dishonorable for men to cover their heads, right? Then why was it commanded by God for His High Priests to do the exact opposite? (Lev 8:1-13) Why did God instruct Ezekiel keep his turban fastened? (Ezek. 24:17) Name the all of women Scripture states who covered their head. Sarah, Hannah, Jesus’ mother, Priscilla – who? Cross-check that with all the men who covered their heads. Notice how long the list of men grows. Almost as long as all the men whose hair was long. Can you see the problem here? By taking one tiny iota of Scripture and building a doctrine with it, such as a woman covering your head but it’s a shame for men to cover theirs, while ignoring what else Scripture has to say is dangerously close to going against Jesus’ rebuke towards the Pharisees. Matt 15: 1-9 Be a Berean, Tamara Blessings on you, T’oma |
||||||
2 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203935 | ||
OK be a Berean... First things first, Mathew 24:4-7, Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars and that these things must happen. I don't believe that means He is endorsing war, the text just doesn't support that theory by the very wording. Jesus saying something must happen is of course prophecy, a true statement of future fact. But just like below that verse where He says in verse 15, therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation which was spoken of through the Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place(let the reader understand), Jesus is not endorsing something evil, like Daniel He is saying it will happen, not saying it is a righteous thing, in fact Jesus is calling it evil at the same time as saying it will happen. Second, Job's wife was using a euphimism(as Strong's also inidcates), saying sarcasticaly, Job why don't you bless God and die?. She could not have meant why don't you praise God by blessing Him and then die, because Job was suffering... Third, whatever was normative to OT saints is not necessarily normative for NT saints. OT economy and NT economies are two very different things. When Paul speaks under the plenary inspiration(all the scriptures are God breathed and the very choice of the author's words is inspired by the Holy Spirit) about something it has the same level of authority as when Jesus speaks about something, or when Peter speaks about something. We need to be careful about how we look at the body of scriptures to get the proper context of each before we say they go together. Comparing the garb of the priesthood in Leviticus 8:1-13 to men's heads being covered in I Corinthians 1:1-16 is to talk about the proscriptions given to two different groups of people under two different religious economies. On the one hand you have that only the priests in both OT passages you mentioned are the men wearing a covering and second we as NT Christians don't follow the laws and proscriptions for conduct set up in the OT. The NT church made a complete break eventualy from all of the traditions of the OT religious communnity. It has been established by studies of history that women of the OT culture as well as women of the NT culture were all wearing veils, or shawls, which includes Sarah, Hannah, Mary, Priscilla. Paul's church community relfected this practice as he stated, if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. By looking closely at Paul's I Corinthians account men were to have their hair shorn and women to have their hair long, contrary to some practices in the OT and Paul says this is the practice of all the churches. If you want to realy throw Mathew 15:1-9 in the mix realize, then the context, it was about breaking from OT tradition, which goes more to supporting Paul's teaching in I Corinthians than it points to breaking an NT new teaching. Also the exact context is that the Pharisees are guilty of making a tradition of Corban, which was not given to them by Moses, but which they made up on their own. That is not the context of Paul setting forth how just as Christ is head of the church and just as man is the head of women, women are over the angels in rank and therefore ought to wear a symbol of authority. As well the context is that Paul is setting forth that just as it is improper for a women to go about with her hair shaved off, because in that time that meant you were a temple prostitute (see a few history books on this the Greeks and Romans and the rest of the pagans did not share this practice, but the Jews did), if you had long hair with it uncovered you were a Jewish prostitute (again see a few history books on this). The principle is that since man is in the image of God his head should be uncovered and with short hair and since a woman is made for man she ought to have a symbol of authority over her long hair to attest to the angels that she is keeping her prope abode as being under the authority of man. The real question remains to be answered, is this a moral proscription to all Christians everywhere at all times, or is it merely to be taken as an historical practice not normative for all Christians? It seems that Paul is making a moral issue out of it and when we like to say something can't be applicable to now because the times have changed, we may be misapplying scripture to make it fit today's norms. This is called transference where we take what was proscribed then and change its application to fit now, which is putting into scripture - eisegesis, rather than pullig out of scripture which is exegesis. Still wearing that hat and still looking for an answer to the original question... God Bless and thank you, Tamara | ||||||
3 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | CarlosDF | 203946 | ||
Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:3, the purpose of which was "... because of the Jews that were in those parts..." Paul counts circumcision as naught after this in 1 Corinthians 7:18, and even as loss in Philippians 3:7. With this in mind, can I make the comparison to a practice, done in the new life, for the purpose of not offending those under the law? Circumcision is clearly not required of us physically, neither would it seem other similar symbolic manifestations of the law, if we take this as precedent. In love, wearing a hat when I'm with you. |
||||||
4 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203967 | ||
Hey Carlos the wearing of hats my good man does not fall in the same category as something to apppease law practicers of Christianity. It was a moral issue and the question remains if that is to be seen as merely an historical practice, or normal for all Christians at all times. God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
5 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | CarlosDF | 203974 | ||
Ah, but by placing it as 'moral issue' and in the writing of an Hebrew who then became one inwardly (Paul), did you not mean the context of the Mosaic law, with consideration of the culture of the surrounding population? The moral guidelines of Paul would be the law (Mosaic), and now that he has become a new man in Christ, the moral guidelines would be of the Holy Spirit's leading. The principal of circumcision was symbolic, yet an absolute practical moral and legal requirement. Arguably an higher moral issue than head coverings, but of the same class. I don't think it's a trivial issue, because it requires, in my belief, the guidance of the Spirit to experientially realize. Christ as fulfillment of the law (moral, religious, and practical requirements), yet awareness of ones impact upon those around you. Great question, there are many today who live by legalism, yet are believers. And many who offend unknowingly, by not knowing or not following the anointing. Amazing Grace indeed! As one already replied, our freedom is absolute in Christ, we can not transgress beyond His sacrifice. Yet, it is the source of life within that guides us actively in the here and now. The living God is the living word, which is the more perfect law. How we should fear God in this! Fervently seek His voice with trembling! Yet praise Him for such grace... Forgive my obtuse communications, far to much education, and not enough humility. May the living word resound in you. |
||||||
6 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203977 | ||
Well, well, well, you have decided to reveal yourself. Paul had Timothy circumsised because he was(partialy) Jewish in order make himself and Timothy a Jew to the Jews that they might win some. And Paul went and took a vow at Jerusalem in order appease the Jerusalem church and the Jewish population in Jerusalem(which backfired). Paul did indeed use Mosaic law in these instances in order to win some and to appease some. Later, while at Corinith he deals with another moral issue, the order in the church regarding the headship of Christ to man and man to woman and woman to angels. In the first instance he uses wisdom to be all things to all men in order to proclaim the gospel. In the second instance he uses bad judgment in a thwarted effort to appease the Jews both believers and unbelievers. In the thrid instance he does something different, he is not making an appeal to conscience based on the use of Mosaic Law. Instead he appeals to conscience based on guidelines he received from the Holy Spirit for a moral response on the part of Christians. This is a different type of appeal and the hat was definitley a symbol, but not the same type of symbol as a vow of purification or circumcision as it did not stem from the same religious economy. It is arguable that circumcision should be considered a higher moral issue seeing as how Paul says he would rather those who compel others to do so as a means of salvation should rather mutilate themsleves. And seeing as how Paul said if anyone had an inclination to be contentious about lenght of hair and head coverings we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. This made it an imperitave at the time. So the question stands is it normative for today as a moral imperative, or is it an historical phenomena? Following a moral imperative from the Holy Spirit is not legalism is it? And it is not uncommon for Christian practice of moral obligations to offend those who are perishing or those who don't like to hear that things that aren't the cultural norm are correct behavior as Christians. See why my pastor said he had other bigger battles to fight? Some folks answered me saying I took up too much space and time with this and made a lot of jokes... Interesting you didn't find it trivial. Hats don't save of course, hats don't confer grace either that I can see. But it is not unimportant to be obedient, my aim is to get under the headship of Christ in all areas. He is Lord of my life. You ain't being obtuse, just circumspect. Your humility is fine... God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
7 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | CarlosDF | 204117 | ||
Dearest saint of the most High God, I fervently inquired of God in the Spirit as to what answer would lead to life. I perceived two things of the Lord, a vision and a word, let them be delivered with the anointing. And may anything of myself be consumed in the flaming, living word He speaks. If I am revealed, as you state, it is to no gain spiritually. I perceived one standing before a mirror, the one on this side having a hat, yet the reflection having none. Are the saints who stand before God, praising Him and giving Him glory forever wearing hats? I do not know but what I see. If one, in faith, chooses to cover in this realm, as a picture of the order of God, do I judge that legalism? No, I have stepped off the throne of my own heart, and can not. We must allow the Spirit to bring forth what you state, the moral imperative, for this day. Yet the spiritual reality that the Spirit pushes forward in this realm, in this age, is the eternal reality of His Kingdom. This leads to the weightier issue of "the headship of Christ in all areas", where we have superceding guidance. To submit to the head practically, one must submit to the body under that head. The building up of the body of Christ is what the life in you wants above all, not to foster contention. That submission is not symbolic! It is by faith, and evidenced by the life you bring forth in the body. If promotion of the wearing of hats was of the Spirit now, in the body where you meet, life would accompany that choice and word. I make no judgment whether that has happened apart from the context of Paul's discourse, is happening somewhere in the universal body, or will happen at some future point. But to raise the question, even with the intention of obedience, yet find dissension in those you meet with, is not finding life. It is judgment of what is correct and incorrect outside of the authority in the body you have submitted to. If it is a prophetic word you bring forth to the members you meet with, a new guiding revelation, you will find life and Grace to give it, even in the midst of persecution, even unto separation from that fellowship. That is extreem, and such a word would be accompanied by confirmation, yes? If it is a 'moral imperative' that you have personal revelation about, then practice it by all means, guarding your heart carefully to not turn that into legalism, which is just as legalistic now as in ancient days, irregardless of new or old economy. Forgive me for not having anything beyond that, no more verses, or vision. May God grant you increased faith extending beyond the mind's comprehension, and a transformed will to follow where He leads in peace. By the Spirit, may His hand lay upon you a new outpouring! With love |
||||||
8 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204118 | ||
Thank you whoever you are! God Bless, Tamara | ||||||