Head coverings

[Guest]

Regarding a woman's beauty, I'm not sure that it must always be viewed in a sinful way. Creation itself displays amazing beauty, yet points to God as the Creator of that beauty.

Yeah, I have no problem with beauty, but it must always point to God, and off of ourselves.

Do you mean most women keep them on all the time? I hope you don't mind me asking...I'm just curious...are you married? If so does your wife keep her covering on all the time?

Well, in the U.S.A. it depends heavily on the denomination. There are some churches that decide that woman should only wear a head covering during prayer. They interpret “prayer” to mean formally in a church service. That seems a little strange to limit it to a church service, though. Others, like some Presbyterians, limit it to when you are “praying,” or the formal “getting down on your knees” praying. And so the covering is on and off, on and off. But, like I mentioned, we are to “pray without ceasing,” and prayer is a communication with God.

Anyway, most conservative Anabaptist churches, and “Covered” Baptist/Anabaptist churches encourage their women to cover all the time. They leave it up to the individual families to decide whether to wear it to bed or not. During showers, of course, some would take it off. I know a Mennonite lady who wears her covering 24 hours a day. And so it really depends on what you and your family have decided on. Seek the Lord in the matter.

I know some Amish who get too legalistic about it. If you don’t wear the right size and the right color at the right time, you will be shunned. That is wrong.

No, I’m not married—I’m a young man, actually. If I was, I would encourage my wife to cover always.

I have concluded (for now at least) that the problem in Paul's mind was a failure to observe gender distinction. As you are probably aware, under the Mosaic Law this was a very serious matter. To me, this would be a practice that Paul would expect to see maintained in all the churches, in some appropriate form.

Here is something I picked up from a tract:

There remains yet one verse, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (verse 16). In effect, Paul is saying, "It would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge a practice that is being observed universally." The fact that this practice is not mentioned in letters to other churches is very understandable in the light of this verse. Apparently, it was faithfully being observed as verse 16 would suggest. The exception was here at Corinth, where possibly there was the threat of a departure. Whatever the situation, it called forth this teaching.

Source: http://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/covertrc.html

[Guest]

It also seems very improbable that being contentious is a custom. More of a fault.

Some translate sunathea as "practice" rather than custom.

Could being contentious be a practice?

The word sunathea comes from athos, a word that the King James translates as "manners"

Is it possible that Paul is using it in this sense? Would the following make sense?

But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such manners, nor have the churches of God. I Cor 11:16

[Guest]

Homer,

I have concluded (for now at least) that the problem in Paul's mind was a failure to observe gender distinction. As you are probably aware, under the Mosaic Law this was a very serious matter. To me, this would be a practice that Paul would expect to see maintained in all the churches, in some appropriate form.

If Paul is addressing a universal command regarding gender distinction, what would he be communicating in verse 16?


loaves and Paidon,

There remains yet one verse, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (verse 16). In effect, Paul is saying, "It would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge a practice that is being observed universally." The fact that this practice is not mentioned in letters to other churches is very understandable in the light of this verse. Apparently, it was faithfully being observed as verse 16 would suggest. The exception was here at Corinth, where possibly there was the threat of a departure. Whatever the situation, it called forth this teaching.

Is it possible that Paul is using it in this sense? Would the following make sense?
But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such manners, nor have the churches of God. I Cor 11:16

Whether it is translated as manners or practice, the content of the preceding verses seems more likely to be the "practice" to which he is referring. If "practice" refers to being contentious, wouldn't Paul have addressed being contentious as sinful rather than impolite?

[Guest]

If Paul is addressing a universal command regarding gender distinction, what would he be communicating in verse 16?

That only women should be contentious? Sounds good to me...

[Guest]

Paidon wrote:

"The word sunathea comes from athos, a word that the King James translates as 'manners.' "

I would offer some caution about the way we use Greek words—especially those of us who depend on lexicons and do not speak the Greek language as our own. I have found that we can find mostly whatever we are looking for if we consult enough lexicons and pick and choose among possible meanings.

To say that a certain word "comes from" another word only means that is has that word as its root, but does not mean that it has the same meaning. Consider our word "butterfly." A foreigner unfamiliar with the insect could reach many strange conclusions if he attached significance to the fact that the word comes from "butter."

The prefix "syn" or "sun" means "together." "Sunetheia" thus means "practice together" or (as Strong's has it) "mutual habituation." Vine gives "force of habit" as a meaning. It seems that the word means a practice agreed upon and practiced together by a group of people—like a custom.

[Guest]

The prefix "syn" or "sun" means "together." "Sunetheia" thus means "practice together" or (as Strong's has it) "mutual habituation." Vine gives "force of habit" as a meaning. It seems that the word means a practice agreed upon and practiced together by a group of people—like a custom.

I define a “custom” as a practice followed as a matter of course, or a common tradition. Christian women shouldn’t wear headcoverings out of tradition or as a matter of course. It should be from a genuine conviction.

Even then, call it what you like, this “custom” has been around for the past 1900 years in the Christian church. Why is that? It wasn’t until the “women’s liberation” movement when the headcoverings started coming off. And as a result of “women’s liberation,” a lot of our modesty and shamefacedness has vanished from our culture.

Just because an apostolic practice is absent today, doesn’t justify the absence. One apostolic practice that has been around for the past 1900 years is the sanctity of marriage. The sanctity of marriage has vanished from our culture and the Christian church. Just because the sanctity of marriage is absent from our modern church, it doesn’t justify the absence.

That logic in dangerous.

[Guest]

Schoel,

You said: If Paul is addressing a universal command regarding gender distinction, what would he be communicating in verse 16?

If the church at Corinth followed the Roman practice (for which there is significant evidence) of both men and women pulling a covering over their head while praying, then this practice (or custom) would be what Paul was referring to. Neither he nor any other churches had such a practice. This would also answer the question, if the women alone were the problem, why did he bring men into the discussion?

[Guest]

Loaves wrote:

"Just because an apostolic practice is absent today, doesn’t justify the absence. One apostolic practice that has been around for the past 1900 years is the sanctity of marriage. The sanctity of marriage has vanished from our culture and the Christian church. Just because the sanctity of marriage is absent from our modern church, it doesn’t justify the absence.

"That logic in dangerous."

I don't see anyone appealing to that kind of "logic" here. It would be strange indeed for a Bible-oriented Christian to argue that the absense of a biblical practice in the modern church proves that the practice is not biblical. An argument like that wouldn't get very far at this forum.

It is equally invalid to argue that a practice is indeed apostolic by appeal to what Christians have done for however many centuries (from the second century til the sixteenth century, all Christians practiced infant baptism, though it is impossible to demonstrate that this was an apostolic practice).

When it comes to identifying biblical norms that should be retained, there is not an exact parallel between the sanctity of marriage and the practice of women covering their heads—namely, the former is clearly taught throughout scripture, and the latter is alluded to in one very vague passage that has long been subject to a variety of interpretations and applications.

My articles on this topic deal with most of the interpretations that have been suggested by Christians of different viewpoints, and attempt to weigh the pros and cons of the various positions.

[Guest]

By examining the word from which it was derived, I think we can often find a lot about the meaning of a Greek word used in the New Testament, especially if the word occurs only two or three times as is the case with “sunatheia”.

I don’t think the “butterfly” comparison is a useful one, since the English word “butterfly” was not derived from “butter”.

A closer comparison in the English language would be that the word “co-labourer” is derived from “labour”, and then the prefix “co” was added.

Having said that, I must make clear that when I suggested the KJV translation of “athos” (from which “sunatheia” is derived) is “manners”, I was merely speculating that this was a possible meaning. That’s why I put it in the form of a question. I wasn’t suggesting anything definitive.

Many Greek words and probably many more English words have gradually changed meaning over the years. An example in English is word “silly”. It’s meaning in its Old English form was “happy”. But in Middle English, it developed as follows:

“blessed — pious — innocent — harmless — feeble — feeble-minded — foolish”

In looking at its use, I think “sunatheia” did originally mean “custom”, and that it maintained that meaning while developing to “habit”. It’s easy to see why it would so develop. For when one is following a custom for some time, the practice of that custom becomes habitual.

You mentioned, Steve, that “Vine gives “force of habit” as a meaning.

In the New Testament, the word “sunatheia” occurs only in the following three verses:

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice (sunatheia), nor have the churches of God.

This is the verse in question. The NASB translates it here as “practice”. [I think the replacement of “such” with “other” by the NASB is unjustifiable].


John 18:39 "But you have a custom (sunatheia) that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?"

In the verse above, the word clearly means “custom” as the NASB has translated it.

1 Corinthians 8:7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed (sunatheia) to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

No translation, to my knowledge, here translates the word as “custom” . But several, as the NASB above, translate it as “being accustomed”. In English “accustomed” is derived from “custom”, but “being accustomed” seems to imply habit.

Weymouth translates the phrase as “Some, from force of habit in relation to the idol.”

My suggestion is “... out of habit concerning the idol”.

If we can agree that “sunatheia” came to mean “habit” while still retaining the meaning “custom”, then perhaps the verse in question could be rendered:

But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such habit , nor have the churches of God.

Paul referring to the habit of being contentious, makes sense to me. Even in our day, we speak this way, though not quite in that wording. I might say, “We don’t have the habit of being contentious, nor do any of the churches of our area”.

[Guest]

It is equally invalid to argue that a practice is indeed apostolic by appeal to what Christians have done for however many centuries (from the second century til the sixteenth century, all Christians practiced infant baptism, though it is impossible to demonstrate that this was an apostolic practice).

The only disagreeable points in that statement of Steve's are
1) the word 'impossible', as it seems very possible to demonstrate the apostolic practice of infant baptism. Perhaps since impossible is from the same word as possible they have the same meaning.
2) Infant baptism predates the second century.