Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering

by TheListener 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  
  The headcovering passage and others reveal that women were considered teachers and prophets in the congregations under Paul. The headcovering bit is hard to be certain about but may have arisen due to a extant belief that women's hair was a sexual organ of sorts. Perhaps this explains the reference to angels, that is to avoid tempting angels when women had contact with them during prophecy or inspiration. Also certain Mystery cults of the day directed the women to have their heads covered in the ceremony until the conclusion when all were declared equal and the hats removed. Perhaps the covering itself was drawn from this tradition like so many other aspects of Pauline Christianity, then again perhaps his insistance that women keep the hat on was to differentiate the cults and placate the men who had a problem with this notion of equality.

  ! Cor 14:34,35 is regarded as a postPauline interpolation (addition). This is so for a number of reasons, the most obvious is that if removed from the text it reads unbroken. Even some manuscripts have these words located elsewhere, betraying that the words were addtions yet to find a permanent home.
• 

  TheListener

  Thanks AChristian for your reply. I found your write-up most informative.

  I hadn't thought of that line of reasoning.

  It really doesn't make much sense does it, that Paul would preach such equality on one hand but such over the top sexism on the second.

  My end answer seems to be that whether these things were written as Paul's instructions, or refutations to wrong teachings, or later scribal additions (which I will be looking into for 1 cor. 14:34,35) they are at adds with other texts that clearly show women having an important, vocal role in the first century ekklesia's. I've also made note that as witnesses we followed some of the rules, like a headcovering, but ignored the braiding and jewelry rules. We ignored the women speaking up in a congregation meeting as well. Women may not be given teaching parts, but they certainly answer questions, and give talks and demonstrations. If two sisters give a demonstration is it only the sisters in the audience that should listen and LEARND (i.e. be taught) by it? No. The brothers do well to watch and listen carefully so as to put into practice the example shown. So women do teach in a christian congregation today. Therefore why do they have to wear head coverings.
• 

  pratt1

  I found this practice to be demeaning to women, and I always had a problem with it.

  Maybe because I had a very intelligent mother and a father who was a unbeliever, but had great repect for women in general, I never understood how the sisters put up with this custom.

  It reminded me of blacks being forced to sit in the back of a bus.

  My wife, who is also an x dub, would tell me wfer to go and how to get there if I pulled any shi# like that.

  Classic was when none of the sisters had a hat and someone would give them a napkin to put over their head.

  STUPID!
• 

  JosephMalik

  1 Corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.
  

  The listener,
  

  Actually more like 3-10 is where the problem is. Why? Because Paul is not teaching this as a truth but as a false doctrine he is now exposing. Where did he get it? From the letter the Corinthians wrote to him mentioned in 7:1. He has been answering it point by point throughout 1Cor. and taking their doctrines apart bit by bit. Things really heat up in chapter 15 with Paul battling astrology and everything else but no one notices. The personal pronoun "I" does not always mean Paul when he writes. Here it is simply part of the quoted information in their letter and really means the Corinthian writer of this letter. Paul is busting their butts and standing up for the equality of women in the faith yet nearly everyone takes his comments the other way around. Translators are responsible for much of this. It is because of such Corinthians that Paul began appointing Elders to fight them. The problem was rampant, found everywhere in every congregation in his territory so he laid hands on others to assist with Elder appointments. The main problem was in Jerusalem itself with James at the head and even the apostles John and Peter fell victim to this outrage. Paul corrected them as well in Gal. They were so angry with Paul they wanted to kill him. Is anyone really paying attention to what the scriptures are teaching? The WT does not want you to know. You will not get the truth from them. Oh just noticed A Christian has already covered this in detail. Should have read all the posts to the thread first.
  Joseph
• 

  rebel8

  I'd make sure the handles were long enough to tie under my chin

  Some have suggested the headcovering should be more phallic, considering it is supposed to be a symbol of male headship. Use your imagination on that one. ;) On a more serious note, I once saw a website selling JW headcoverings. <stomach turns>

  PS-I don't remember any of the younger bros appreciating the headcovering rule. They seemed to cringe at it. It was the powerhungry bros I recall getting a real kick out of enforcing it.
• 

  Narkissos

  I remember I replied to a Christian when he first posted his article. Too bad the JWD search function doesn't work.

  The main reason why I wouldn't buy into this explanation is that any writer who quotes an opinion he disagrees with will be anxious to make sure that the quotation cannot be misinterpreted as his own thought. In a writing which includes no quotation marks or punctuation (as is the case of ancient Greek manuscripts) and is meant to be read aloud he will make the quotation explicit, use verbal markers to isolate it from his own argument and follow it up with a clear refutation. This is just what Paul does when he quotes his adversaries (real or imaginary):

  You say, "We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth." Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?

  And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved!

  You will say to me then, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?"

  Several recent Bible translations do add quotation marks in some dubious occurrences, in line with mainstream exegesis which discerns arguments from a letter of the Corinthians to Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:1; 8:1,4,8; 10:23). Whereas it is entirely possible that Paul includes some of his interlocutors' expressions, in those cases he doesn't disown them but actually endorses them, with the reservations and modifications he introduces in the following clauses or sentences. So the presence or absence of quotation marks does not really alter the meaning. Afaik no Bible translator imagined to do that in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 for instance. If the "I" of v. 3 is not meant to be the same as the "I" in v. 1-2 Paul was begging misunderstanding. True, v. 11 begins with an adversative (plèn, "however," "nevertheless") and introduces a series of nuances to the concept of headship. But this is not a refutation: v. 13ff argue for the use of the veil too, only with a different argument. And this is very much in line with Paul's practice of making absolute statements and then nuancing his thought.
• 

  TheListener

  Oh Crap! Narkissos. You killed my buzz.

  Here is what the Emphatic Diaglott says :

  1 cor 11:16 - "If but any one thinks contentious to be, we such like custom not have, nor the congregations of the God." - Translated in English as: "If, however, any one is disposed to be contentious, we have no Such Custom, neither have the CONGREGATIONS of God."

  Here is what the KIT says:

  1 cor. 11:16 - "If but anyone is seeming fond of disputing to be, we such custom not we are having, neither the ecclesias of the God." - Translated in English as: "However, if any man seems to dispute for some other custom, we have no other, neither do the congregations of God."

  What the H!#%LL! I mean come on! I can't figure out whether he's saying 'we don't have that custom' or if he's saying 'we don't have any other custom, so follow this one.' I can tell, though, that the KIT English translation (NWT, 1985) isn't as correct as the ED. It seems that they added in the NWT the phrase "for some other custom" which distinctly implies that the Corinthians wanted to have some different custom (like, perhaps no head covering?). The Greek text just doesn't seem to say that as perfect as the society would like.

  Which brings me to this point: If Paul is indeed arguing for a headcovering why does he say there is no man, woman, greek, jew, etc. in other verses. It's kind of confusing.

  Why does he tell women to not speak in the congregation, yet says they are deacons and can speak in tongues and prophesy? That's confusing too.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Listener, 1 Tim and Titus were written many years after Paul. 2 Thess likely as well.
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Flyinghighnow,
  >Whenever I would have a differing opinion from my ex, he would get very rude and sarcastice with me, especially in front of our children and call me Boss or say, "Okay, Boss. You're the boss. You're always trying to step out of your place." I cringe when I think of the way his voice sounded, so haughty and so cruel.
  
  You should have reminded him that he needed to love and respect you as Christ loves the church. As husbands, we are to put your needs above all others and that includes the children. There are two parts to that section of scripture and weak, insecure men often ignore the whole context of the verses. They get that naturally though, from Watchtower leadership. LOL
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Narkissos,
  You did indeed nail that one down to specifics. Good solid exegesis. Please do forgive me for being so judgmental with you in another thread. It is a fault that I occasionally have to deal with.
  Rex