Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Lauren Mary
Dear Brian et al.
In response to your question Brian: "Lauren, in all seriousness does the Bible command you to cover your face when you pray? There are many RPW people on here who should be asking you about that but if they won't, I will."
-------------------------
Thank you for asking. I hope the reason none of the RPW people asked me about it is because they could see I never said anything about it being a command, but that I was only sharing how this personal gesture in prayer was experienced as a blessing for me. My apologies for any misunderstandings.
Blessings,
LM
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
On the hair as covering...you will see that the passage is comparative..."does not nature ALSO...?"
The term for covering here refers to an actual covering of material, a veil....not the hair.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Just to clarify...I did point out my reasons for wearing it in public...none of them being scriptural, I admit that. I also am not pushing for that.
Of course you may be refering to particular groups that DO insist upon that...
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
On the hair as covering...you will see that the passage is comparative..."does not nature ALSO...?"
The term for covering here refers to an actual covering of material, a veil....not the hair.
Originally posted by Archlute
Does anyone here have any greater proof that Paul is speaking of cloth headcoverings and not hair length? If not, how would that then change your understanding of this passage and it's requirements for the Church?
I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, & 7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given to her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches.
But here is my question: What visible, tangible practice or custom is done today to signify the moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church? What has "œreplaced" the head covering?
We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?
How would one, Christian or otherwise, observe the biblical practice of a visible sign of authority over the woman? If it is not a covering (because of our culture) then what is it? Or, what should it be? It seems to me that when the Apostle calls for a visible sign of authority or power upon the (woman´s) head, he is mandating that it ought to be immediately apparent to the observer of the rightful order of things.
My questions can be compacted into one: What modern day, culturally specific custom is expressing this absolute moral principle of submission and authority in the Church?
Originally posted by mangum
*cough* *cough*
We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?
Then there is the matter of "praying or prophesying". If this is the public assembly, and we also have instruction from Paul, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak", I have a difficult time seeing this passage as regulating what Paul is specifically forbidding in chapter 14. It seems like the IRS coming after someone for not paying taxes on the proceeds from a drug deal.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
On men, I believe past the shoulders is too long...personal opinion, so don't ask for scripture on that one, I base my opinion on it from a look through history.
Originally posted by Augusta
My understanding is that in Corporate worship which includes all of the sacraments, prayer, worship, etc. occurs before the throne of God in unity as a body. Thus they all participate in the prayer worship etc. wether all speak or don't speak. Thus a woman can never speak but be in unity before the throne participating in all of these things.
Originally posted by Augusta
We know both men and women spiritually are equal, but Paul is saying here there should be a distinction of the headship order maintained and the the women should have "power on her head."
1 Cor. 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Originally posted by Augusta
My understanding is that in Corporate worship which includes all of the sacraments, prayer, worship, etc. occurs before the throne of God in unity as a body. Thus they all participate in the prayer worship etc. wether all speak or don't speak. Thus a woman can never speak but be in unity before the throne participating in all of these things.
Does either word pray or prophesy ever refer to mere non-aural passive participation in the action of another?
It seems to me that whatever is being referenced here is real activity on the part of the persons. Since we know that there were for a time in the very early church prophetesses (Acts 2:17,18; 21:9), why should we not think that Paul's words are being directed at that special (minority) class of women.
In those days there were women who prophesied and that of course no longer happens now. Paul is not differentiating between men and women based on what they are doing ie praying and prophesying. He is commanding both to do a specific thing while praying and prophesying. They are all participating as one body. There are not hats of and on for specific this or that. It is a constant state of covered and not covered.
Now my understanding is that when we are before God "In Christ" in the spirit we are not their bodily obviously. We are there spiritually and we are one invisible body before the throne "via" "Christ." We worship in spirit. So this is what I am understanding the praying and prophesying to be. It's corporate here not specific.
Paul is stating the headship order as it should be before God. And he is saying men should NOT cover their heads and women SHOULD. It is a dual command. Not one command for one or the other. I think this explains the angel aspect also because they are present when we worship in the spirit. Paul's appeal is never to anything other than the created order of headship for this command.
Originally posted by Augusta
We know both men and women spiritually are equal, but Paul is saying here there should be a distinction of the headship order maintained and the the women should have "power on her head."
1 Cor. 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Yes, but that does not explain the directive of Paul to women who "pray or prophesy".
And it does not explain why this is generalized to men and women, not husbands and wives.
As a man I am not the head over all women. Neither is my wife subject to all men, even in the congregation. But Paul speak of men and women in a broader sense that husbands/wives.
Perhaps what is in view is a prophet/prophetess relationship. That in the general flow of things the prophetesses (women) in Corinth were to be subject to the prophets (men), and a covering was a sign of that submission. "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1 Cor. 14:32)
I agree that it is not in the sense of husbands or wives necessarily either because he take pains to say that in the Lord we are all from God.
1 Cor. 11:11 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.
What then is the problem? Paul is saying that there is an order of headship and it must be shown via symbol. The women must have power on their head and the men shouldn't.
I hope I am making some sense. I am not especially gifted at it.