Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head [and the One who is his head]. |
Subject: Should Women Wear Hats? |
Bible Note: 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 |