Given Her for a Covering by Mike Atnip

Another article on Head covering! :)
However this quite a good exposition of the text.

Here's my question though. For those who teach that the head covering for women is all the time they are in public, you have to accept that in the very same passage (1 Corinthians 11:4-5) it says that 'Every MAN praying or prohesying, having HIS HEAD COVERED, dishonours his head (Christ)'. I have never heard teaching saying that men should NEVER cover their heads in public. However you cannot insist on women being covered without the man being un-covered, because it is the same argument put forward by Paul. It's just illogical.

So, any man who insists that a woman has her head covered at all times in public, you also dare not cover your head at the same time!

Makes more sense to see this as a practice for corporate worship I think.

I do think that this is not such a big issue with the LORD as we make it. I sometimes wonder what Jesus would say about it if He was asked. Maybe in the same way he spoke to the religious folk during His earthly ministry, He would rebuke our concentration on outward things and remind us of the inner life and heart condition.

Haven't read the entire article yet, its quite long.

But, I do ask, should a man cover his head, and a woman not cover hers, will they go to hell for it?

Its a rhetorical question, no answer necessary.

Hi Frank,

You wrote "I wonder what the original poster makes of this question, does he cover his head at all times and if not, why not?"

I think it should read "does he UNCOVER his head at all times".

Blessings.

Dave.

I edited my post. Decided against stepping into this thread.

rdg

Insightful article. Not comprehensive, but concise.

All of the unanswered questions will still need to be answered to satisfy the curious and encourage the seeking.

Doug

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your reply to Enid, as I think it gives good perspective on this issue and other similar ones.

What would be your thoughts on men not covering their heads when praying and prophysying or at any time? It does seem quite important, as we would not want to dishonour our head, who is Christ.

Do we as men ever think about this scripture?

Hi Heydave. (Nice to "meet" you.)

You wrote:
"However you cannot insist on women being covered without the man being un-covered, because it is the same argument put forward by Paul. It's just illogical."

Strictly speaking, the apostle was inspired by the Spirit of Jesus to say "WHEN you pray or prophesy..." He did not specify WHERE, (take another look and recall that the chapter breaks, headings, and even the paragraphs in your Bible were [EDIT: "not"] in the inspired original.) Necessarily therefore, according to the laws of logical deduction, that would mean the apostle means "WHENEVER you pray or prophesy..."

Now consider if you will dear Brother, that there are approximately 115 waking hours in a week. We know we are to "pray without ceasing", and that opportunities to prophesy abound. Regarding our dear Sisters therefore, according to the LETTER of the text here before us, our dear Sisters must at least, if they are to be pleasing to their Lord, wear the headcovering whenever they pray or prophesy.

As you can see, having to carry around a shawl or other kind of covering, and be putting it on and taking it off all day long would be rather cumbersome. would it not? Of course it would, and it would seem like a silly burden as well. But simply wearing it, keeping it on, removes that difficulty.

You continue:
"So, any man who insists that a woman has her head covered at all times in public, you also dare not cover your head at the same time!"

This is a "non sequitur", i.e., this conclusion does not necessarily follow, for the very reasons I gave above.

Also, life and health are factors in this discussion as well. Our good Lord, who knows how to give good things to us, does not condemn the "accidental" covering of a conscientious man, where there is a true necessity for warmth, or the need to protect from the sun, just as He does not condemn the uncovering of a conscientious woman, due to the "accidents" of wind or dire poverty.

You conclude:
"I do think that this is not such a big issue with the LORD as we make it."

This particular apostolic practice is, my dear Brother, such a big deal that the Holy Spirit chose to breath it out, and preserve it for it almost two thousand years, until it made its way into the book of 1 Corinthians in the very Bible in your hands.

This same Jesus, the One who spoke through His apostles, yet speaks today. A profound thought for us all to seriously meditate upon.

Be well dear Brother,
Doug

Hi Brother!

You wrote:
"Heydave writes...... "Another article on Head covering! :)"

Yeah, makes you wonder."

I don't wonder; I know. Brother Greg has already told us many times why he sacrifices his time, and risks the scorn and abuse to speak out on unpopular issues. The WAY upon which he walks is, of necessity, less popular at times, if he is to walk in true love toward the rest of us.

With anguish of soul, such a one must not only encourage his fellow believers, but also at times, must warn them as well. Not many understand this, but the one giving the "bitter medicine" is often as troubled in soul, as the one receiving it... Brother Greg pays a price.

I sense that you know this to be true, my dear Brother.

You continue:
"I agree that this tradition existed for at least 1800 years, yet the doctrine, in fact the central doctrine that burns at the heart of Catholicism, has existed for at least 1200 years, transubstantiation. I wonder if the author believes that this established doctrine is correct? Remember, those who believe this long practiced doctrine believe that they have Scriptural authority based on John 6..........brother Frank"

My Brother, your argument to discredit the writer's argument from antiquity does not follow, for your proof is incorrect. The dogma of Transubstantiation was only promulgated by Rome in 1215 A.D. by the Fourth Lateran Council. It was a rather late invention of the Roman Church (no longer truly Catholic at this point), with not only no basis whatsoever in Scripture, but no true basis in the early ante-nicene Church either.

What does have a basis in Scripture, and what we see the early Christians believing, was the doctrine of the True Spiritual Presence. That is, we do partake of Christ "Spiritually" in Communion. This is by faith alone. Please look at John 6:63 in particular. Notice, he says, his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, that they are "Spirit" and "Life", spiritual and living?

Therefore, saying that arguments that the antiquity of the headcovering practice can be dismissed, because after all the Roman Church believed in transubstantiation too, is a non-sequitur, it does not follow.

All of this is spoken in Faith and in Love. I pray you take it so, my friend.

Be well,
Doug

Greetings to you also brother.

You will have to forgive me if I am a bit slow to follow, but I cannot see your logic and you have not answered the question.

The scripture clearly says that for a man to cover his head when praying or prophysying is a dishonour to his head (Christ). It also says that for a women to pray and prophesy without covering her head she dishonours her head (man). So then both can dishour their respective heads when praying or prophysying - one by covering the head and the other by not covering. The obvious conclusion is that the only way to honour your head is that the man does not cover his head and the woman does.

Now this is where you have to decide does it mean all the time or just in corporate gatherings. If it is all the time, it MUST apply to both man and woman. Unless I missuderstood you, it seems you were very generous to the man if he put a hat on by accident - how you do that I don't know :) - or has to for warmth, but do not use the same 'measure' for a women. i.e if it is too hot.

So if it is a big deal, please answer the question - Should a man always be without a covering on his head (save a situation he cannot avoid)? What about protection from the sun or safety helmet?

Edit: Is Verse 5 a bigger deal than verse 4?

Dear Brother Blaine,

You wrote:
"Why are you debating the appropiatness of wonan praying or prophesying in the church since neither is done?"

Dear Brother, I am not debating the appropriateness of women praying or prophesying in the meeting of the Church.

Please read my first explanatory post above.

You continue:
"Brother Greg I am asking in all sincerity, do you believe the gift of prophesy still operates in the church today? It seems pretty backward to argue about externals when very little prayer and certainly no prophesying is taking place in our churches. If you have no life of the Spirit then all you have is dead religion."

What is "prophesy", according to you, dear Brother?

I am no "Cessationist", and I know "prophesy", according to Scripture to mean, (among other things): to speak to spiritually edify, exhort, and comfort another soul. See here:

"But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." I Corinthians 14:3

Such prophesy can and should be exercised by both men and women at all hours of the day, and where practicable. We all can use "a word in season", even when it isn't the Lord's Day.

Be well Brother,
Doug

martyr asked:
Brother Greg I am asking in all sincerity, do you believe the gift of prophesy still operates in the church today?

Do these churches even believe in prophesy? (edit: future events should be included in prophesy. AND if they prophesy, do they believe in speaking in tongues? /edit)

I'm just full of questions today!!

God bless us all,
Lisa

Hi Brother,
Thank you for your response.

You said:
"Unless I missuderstood you, it seems you were very generous to the man if he put a hat on by accident - how you do that I don't know :) - or has to for warmth, but do not use the same 'measure' for a women. i.e if it is too hot."

No, no. By "accidental" here, I mean it's alternative definiition: "nonessential, incidental." I.e., the conscientious man ONLY wears a hat when he absolutely has to. No, my friend, God doesn't require any less obedience from men than he does from women.

You wrote before this:
"Now this is where you have to decide does it mean all the time or just in corporate gatherings. If it is all the time, it MUST apply to both man and woman."

The apostle's headcovering tradition applies all the time. It applies to both men and women, whenever they pray or prophesy.

You wrote:
"So if it is a big deal, please answer the question - Should a man always be without a covering on his head (save a situation he cannot avoid)? What about protection from the sun or safety helmet?"

Out of respect for His Saviour, he should avoid covering his head, unless there is some necessity, like needing to protect his life or his health.

Does this make sense to you, dear Brother?

You conclude:
"Is Verse 5 a bigger deal than verse 4?"

No, both verses are of equal validity and importance.

Be well,
Doug

I was thinking along these lines all morning and then I came here and see that there is this article on men covering their heads. Talk about the Holy Spirit inspiring people! Awesome!

What made me think a lot more about it is the question Questor asked on the other thread about men covering their heads - this is what generated questions in my mind, so here goes...

It seems as though in our community whenever you have a public meeting like at a farm meeting/supper, college graduation or whatever there is prayer. Always, whenever prayer is about to be said the men will reach up and remove their hats. Every time. This even happened at our son Jonathan's graduation exercises at Mississippi State University where there were several hundred grads participating. But not one of the female students removed her cap!

Males naturally remove their caps/hats when public prayer is about to said. But, I wonder, do they know why they do it? Is it just a natural thing to do? Is it instinct? On the other hand, I have seen pic of a street preacher who wears a hat and in my spirit it does not sit well...

Do males realize the power that is on their uncovered heads when praying or prophesying?

I wonder, if they give no credibility to the covered/uncovered principle does this weaken their authority?

When I was in a situation where I had to minister to a male and the Holy Spirit told me that since I had the symbol of authority on my head and that I am to use it, does this follow as well for males who understand this principle and act on it, like I did?

Questions, and more questions, I admit....

Hi Brother, and thanks for taking the time to respond.

First, I want to apologize for assuming. I guess we don't see Brother Greg's ministry the same way.

Also, I understand there is a danger in focusing on externals. Understand too though, that there is also a danger on focusing on "internals", when Jesus said "you will know them by the their fruit." Fruit as you, is not only "the fruit of the Spirit", but also "the obedience of faith." We ought to meet in the middle on this one, and just agree that BOTH extremes should be objected to, brother Frank.

Also, I have been VERY consistent. Please re-read what I have written: I have never argued that women MUST wear the headcovering "all the time." You have erecting a straw man here, my friend. You then call my reasoning "strange", and I would agree that this is literally true, if you've never seen the argument that I have been very carefully presenting here.

Regarding women speaking in the Church: Paul literally says "no." Taken together with His requirement for women to pray and prophesy covered, that would logically mean, (deductively), that women do their praying and prophesying during the 165 other hours out of the 168 total hours that are in a week. Of course, we are all free, for now, to come up with some other interpretation of the literal texts here, if we feel this is still too restrictive.

Finally, regarding tradition and dogma, Christians, such as they were, were not forced to accept Transubstantiation until 1215. I understand that many did accept it before, but your argument here misses the point in either case. The original article that Brother Greg posted said that the headcovering was practiced from the earliest times up to the 19th century. Transubstantiation was not.

Yes, iron does sharpen iron. It also creates heat. My dear Brother: I am no hypocrite, and I never implied that you were anything other than genuine either. I pray there is no offense created from my writing these things to you.

Be well my Brother,
Doug

Greg,

Thank you for your reply.

You say: "In Christ, I have never felt comfortable to wear a hat while praying or at church. I believe this is important and to obeyed as the Spirit leads us. We must not make these things seem trivial but must come from a heart of obedience to the Lord. Are we willing to obey Him fully because of the love and gratitude for such a great salvation in the blood of Christ."

My point is that to be consistant with what you wrote above, then surely the sisters should have their heads covered 'while praying or at church', not neccesarily all the time. Otherwise you would have to say you men should not wear a head covering at anytime.

Does this make sense?

I'm only trying to understand what the correct interpretation is of the command we have to obey.

Dear sister,

you wrote: It seems as though in our community whenever you have a public meeting like at a farm meeting/supper, college graduation or whatever there is prayer. Always, whenever prayer is about to be said the men will reach up and remove their hats. Every time. This even happened at our son Jonathan's graduation exercises at Mississippi State University where there were several hundred grads participating. But not one of the female students removed her cap!

The obvious question here is why is it OK for the men to wear hats and remove them to pray, but the sisters have to wear coverings all the time. Is there one interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 for men and another for women? What do you think?

HeyDave wrote:
The obvious question here is why is it OK for the men to wear hats and remove them to pray, but the sisters have to wear coverings all the time.

This is not my question - mine is that it appears males instinctively seem to observe it, but do they give credibility to its principle?

Females also wear headgear for weather protection but we do not consider this to be the one and same as a head covering worn for Biblical reasons. But then the caps males wear are for weather protection...Oh well, one can split hairs, ah reckon, on this until the cows come home and still be splitting hairs...

When a lady wears a head covering in the public, it provides her with many opportunities to share the gospel because people ask us why we wear that cap. This is really exciting, I promise! Males rarely get this opportunity - they have to make it. We sisters have it built in because of our observance.

The reason so many males do not want their wives to wear one in public is because they are embarrassed to be with a woman who looks different. They want their wife to look like other women - maybe to show off their feminine specimen to other males?

You asked what I think...

What say, Dave?

Hi Brother,

You wrote:
"And so a major sign for me that hypocrisy is lurking here, is that there is no consistency among those who claim that it is there in Scripture so it must be obeyed despite what we thing( I actually agree with that) If a man thinks a woman should cover her head at all times, he must, and I repeat, must have his head uncovered at all times if he is to be consistent. I am sorry brother but your own explanation about accidents and making exceptions for weather and so on is just slightly strange :)"

What I have said is not "strange", but consistent. If you absolutely, without a doubt, want to please God in this area, then do what He says to do, WHENEVER you pray or prophesy. Simple. Consistent. No contradictions.

As for what else I said about making room for the necessities I mentioned, I will leave the reader to sincerely judge whether doing so is also consistent with the character of God.

****************************

Regarding the True Spiritual Presence of our Lord in Communion, I have no problem with the quotes you gave. These fathers are merely speaking exactly the same way our Lord did:

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:53-54

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

Let me ask you my Brother: Was our Lord “necessarily” calling the bread and cup his “actual” flesh and blood, or not?

If not, why not?

Likewise: were the Fathers that you quoted “necessarily” calling the bread and cup His “actual” flesh and blood, or not?

If so, how so?

By the way, dear Brother, I don't accept the exclusive claims of the Roman Church, and their dogma that a priest has special powers to change bread and wine into the actual body and blood of the Lord, but I do very seriously accept the exclusive claims that Jesus made about His own Communion. Very seriously.

Just some thoughts for you and the reader to consider.

Thank you for giving some explanation for your "hypocrisy" statement. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

Be well,
Doug

Hi Ginnyrose,

I know it was not your question, but to me it is the obvious question that arises from your example.:)

I have only been making one point on this subject...and it is a point of inconsistancy, which you illustrated perfectly.

I am happy that you want to wear a head cap or any other covering if you believe you are doing it 'unto the Lord'.

However from a biblical teaching or command I only know of one place in the bible where a head covering is mentioned (1 Corinthians 11) and this speaks to both men and women. Do you agree?

So let me ask you this.... Do the any of men in your assembly wear hats outside of the meetings and when not gathered to pray etc, e.g. when working etc?
Now is it taught that the women have to wear a covering all the time in public? If the answers to both these questions are yes, then how do you square that with what 1 Corinthians 11 says. As I have said before the only way is to interpret vs. 4 and 5 in a different way for men and for women. That would be inconsistant.

I'm just trying to get folk to think about this in a logical and honest way.

BTW I do think that in an assembly/gathering/church meeting women should wear a covering and men should not cover their heads. This I think is being consistant with what is being commanded in the passage in question.

I'm happy for those who think it is all and any time if they apply the rule to both men and women. i.e men never to wear a head covering, but that's not how I see it.

Hello Ma'am,

You wrote:
"When a lady wears a head covering in the public, it provides her with many opportunities to share the gospel because people ask us why we wear that cap. This is really exciting, I promise! Males rarely get this opportunity - they have to make it. We sisters have it built in because of our observance."

This has been my experience as well. My wife and I have had several opportunities to witness for Christ specifically because people were curious about her, because of her dress and especially her headcovering. I think the people who have stopped to ask us, were intrigued by such a display: a steadfast woman, apparently fearless in the face of a hostile culture.

You continue:
"The reason so many males do not want their wives to wear one in public is because they are embarrassed to be with a woman who looks different. They want their wife to look like other women - maybe to show off their feminine specimen to other males?"

I suspect you are probably correct. There is a lot working against this particular tradition of the apostles, not the least of which is our shallow culture.

Be well Sister,
Doug

Hello Doug,
I was going to pick up on this point made by ginnyrose, but will also with you.

I don't personally think that we want to identified by our clothing. There are many religions and sects that have a counter-culture dress code. Take muslim women in western society for example.

Don't get me wrong, I believe we (and women particularly) should dress modestly. My wife does and that in itself can be a witness, but not in a obvious and starkly different way that would draw attention to her, which I think is a danger of some Christian attire.

Surely what we want is for people to see that we are different in the way we live, the things we do and who we serve and yet they can relate to in lots of other ways. It is when folk see that we have something real and it changes how we live that they are open to hear the gospel and realise it applies to them, where they are and in their situation. Not that we belong to a particular group who have a different dress code or culture. That they will easily dismiss as "nice for you, but that's not me".

I don't think I have explained it very well, but I hope you get the heart of what I'm trying to say.
Yes we are different as Christians, but let the difference be Christ and not anything else that we have added.

Hi,
The more important question is in my opinion,
Why is the head covering linked to prayer and prophesy?

Also What are consequences if the head of woman is not covered?
(we see later that many are sick as a consequence of taking the lords supper inapproapriately)
Yours Staff

Hi Brother,

You wrote:
"I don't personally think that we want to identified by our clothing. There are many religions and sects that have a counter-culture dress code. Take muslim women in western society for example."

I actually don't think so either.

You continue:
"Don't get me wrong, I believe we (and women particularly) should dress modestly. My wife does and that in itself can be a witness, but not in a obvious and starkly different way that would draw attention to her, which I think is a danger of some Christian attire."

I think it is good that you take this sort of thing seriously in your family. As for being starkly different however, that is a matter of perspective, isn't it?

You continue:
"It is when folk see that we have something real and it changes how we live that they are open to hear the gospel and realise it applies to them, where they are and in their situation. Not that we belong to a particular group who have a different dress code or culture. That they will easily dismiss as "nice for you, but that's not me"."

Well, couldn't folks seeing a lady who isn't afraid of the intense peer pressure of our culture be, (at least), one example of a heart that is "real" for God?

Of course, there are always going to be people who do not consider, but merely "react" against such things. I have determined however in my heart, that I am going follow God wherever He leads me. Even though there may be people who hate me for it. Which reminds me, Jesus promised that all who live Godly, will suffer persecution. Whether people blow me off, or hate me, or open their hearts because of the some powerful example of obedience, or act of Love, this all must be fine with me. I am not my own anymore. I just have to accept whatever God allows.

You finish with:
"I don't think I have explained it very well, but I hope you get the heart of what I'm trying to say.
Yes we are different as Christians, but let the difference be Christ and not anything else that we have added."

Yes, I think you explained it well. I think I understand you, my Brother. I would only say, that there is a whole New Testament that Jesus wrote through His apostles. I didn't pick what He wrote for us to believe and obey. He did. He was perfect in it.

There is a cross for everyone of us Bro. If you've been in Christ for any length of time, you know exactly how true this is. You know that we don’t' get to pick and choose our crosses. Jesus does, and He bestows not only all the grace to do so, but also all the blessings that come with each one.

I appreciate you taking the time to reason with me.

Be well, and may God bless you and your family,
Doug

I was not going to post to this thread but after I shared some with my husband the question arose that we are seeking to understand. In the teaching that Greg posted the word veil is used and the description is given that sounds as if the entire head must be covered. Now I have seen some of the pictures that were shared through links and some of the descriptions given that those who wear the head covering do not sound like a veil and they do not sound like they cover the entire head? I am trying to understand this better can someone explain why the difference.

here are the part I find confusing:[3] This study is not about the size of the covering, but as a side note we need to come to terms with the fact that it is a “covered head” that signifies submission, not “a covering on the head.” Many women have “a covering” on their head, but their head is not really covered. The Greek word for “cover” is rooted in the idea of “hidden.” The covering is supposed to “hide” the head, which signifies that the head (authority) is covered over by a man’s authority. In addition, we need to remember that to have the symbol (the hidden head) without the reality (submission to the man) is hypocrisy.

rdg

editing: I read the other thread posted and I do feel like I have some better understanding on this now.

I have thought about the head covering/long hair issue a number of times over the years so it caught my attention. This post is not to provoke controversy, but to give a thought for honest consideration.

To start with, I respect it if women feel they should wear a head covering (in addition to long hair). Personally, I feel like the passage is referring specifically to long hair on women and short hair on men, not to an additional covering beyond this.

One line of thought I didn't see mentioned was regarding the OT priests. God designed a specific attire they were to wear especially for the holiest of duties--ministering in the Temple. The high priest had his special headress and the rest of the priests were to wear what is termed "bonnets." This is interesting because in the OT, the priests were to be the examples, the holiest of the Israelites. If you read in the law, they had additional requirements put upon them to be holy--more than the average Israelite. Yet, we read that when they were sacrificing and performing the temple duties (including ministering and prayer), they were to be wearing these priestly garments.

In other words, the men who were the human examples of holiness to the Israelites were commanded to wear a specific type of hat/head covering while ministering before God.
When Paul makes his arguement regarding headship, and includes his discussion on hair, he was not giving a new revelation regarding hair, rather basing his argument on what they already accepted regarding hair and used it in his arguement for God's order of headship. If we consider he is not giving out a whole new idea about hair and covering, then we could conclude he must NOT be talking about an additional covering beyond the hair as that would be saying that it was all right in the OT for men to wear a covering while praying, but now in the NT it is no longer right or proper to do so. If we look at Jews today, their men still wear a special cap, especially for prayer. This is not to say we need to do so, but this is a carryover from OT days.

Considering Paul was familiar with the law and Jewish prayer, he must not have been talking about an extra covering for woman and no extra covering for men as that would seem to contradict the law itself and their very culture. It seems he would have stated that this was a new thing and made that very clear. It rather appears to have been referring directly to long hair as a covering (I Cor. 11:15). Long hair for women and short hair for men. Then we are always ready to pray, whether in the Canadian Artic or the African desert, wherever we are, whether man or woman. JLM

Hi JLM,

Interesting to consider the OT priesthood and the fact that they (men) wore headcoverings when ministering before the LORD.

However I don't quite understand your point in saying that Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians is not changing anything from the OT.

As you said, the (male) priests wore head coverings when ministering and Jews even today wear a cap. However Paul says very clearly that for a man to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying is a dishonour to his head (Christ) and therefore he MUST NOT wear a head covering when ministering to the LORD. So it has changed hasn't it?

In fact I think the reason it has changed is that now Christ (God the Son) is our direct head, where as in the OT that relationship was not possible due to Sin not being taken away.

Am I mis-understanding what you are saying?

You said:
"In fact I think the reason it has changed is that now Christ (God the Son) is our direct head, where as in the OT that relationship was not possible due to Sin not being taken away."

Yes. A precise word dear Brother.

Christ, as conqueror of Sin and Death, is now the progenitor of a whole new race of men on the earth. He is now, by right, DIRECT Head of Mankind, (being the Head of "the man" in particular, since Man is yet the particular head of Woman from the time of the Creation.)

The implications of this profound and now revealed "mystery" are expounded by Paul, (at times, it would seem to the reader, in breathless adulation), on page after page of his many epistles...

Visibly displayed by this tradition of the apostles, is the Mystery of God's new relationship with MAN, through His Victorious Son.

May He receive our Glory! And Honor! and Praise! Forever! Amen.

Take care dear Brother... and,

God bless the reader.
Doug

Heydave,
The point I was trying to bring across was to clarify the issue on whether the head covering/no covering referred to in I Corinthians is long (women)/short (men) hair or if it is an additional covering/no covering beyond the long/short hair.

In the first post I replied to, it was stated that the greek word "anti" that is transalated "for" in the KJV could be translated as

“her long hair is given her as a response to a covering.”
“her long hair is given her because of a covering.”
“her long hair is given her for the cause of a covering.”
“her long hair is given her in light of a covering.”
“her long hair is given her in consequence of a covering.”
“her long hair is given her in consideration of a covering.”

and it was stated in that post that the English Websters dictionary defined "for" as:

In the place of; instead of; as a substitute or equivalent
As representative of, on behalf of
With reference or in regard to
Because of; on account of, by reason of
With a view to the use and benefit of[1].

The view taken from these meanings was that it specifically pointed to a second covering (Long hair being the first one). I believe though even if we look at the possible options of meaning posted here, the question of whether there should be an additional covering is still ambiguous.

Strong's defines "anti" as (I quote) "opposite, that is instead of or because of (rarely in addition to): - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, corresposdence, etc."

The author of the original post said this:

"Both definitions can be grammatically correct. So we have to look to the context for our answer. Contextually, it is clear that her long hair was God’s response to her submission to the authority of the man. He glorified what was in submission. And, 19 centuries of church history back up that interpretation.

What can we say, except that the Christian woman should cover her head as a symbol of submission, and with long hair in a natural response to that? And if she does not wish to cover her head with authority, she should also be stripped of her glory."

So we see the writer of the post stated both definitions can be gramatically correct. This means the definition of "anti" does not clearly show us which meaning to use.

The writer stated we needed to look to the context for an answer. The other mention of context I noted in that post was stated this way:

"Concerning context, the replacement aspect of anti makes little sense in verse 15 when we look at verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” If her long hair is given to replace her covering, it makes absolutely no sense to say, “But if the woman doesn’t have long hair, let her also be shorn or shaven.”

The assumption made in this paragraph was that in verse 6, the long hair was given to REPLACE the covering, so it couldn't make sense. To start, I think we would agree that Paul was not giving a new commandment that woman should now have long hair, but was stating a known and agreed on fact that women naturally did have long hair. It has been that way since creation.

So I would agree, long hair was NOT given somewhere along the way to replace a covering, but long hair at creation was made for (or as or instead of) a covering in the first place. There was no replacement, it was the covering in the first place.

I realize that in looking only at I Corinthains 11, this is just my opinion as compared to the next person's since we can see that there is not absolute certainty that either verse 15 or verse 6 clearly shows if there is to be only one or two veils.

I would just note here that I feel there is no question on whether long hair on woman is a type of veil. I believe this is clear from the passage. Rather the question is, should there be a second veil.

This is where my thought on the headwear of the OT priests comes into my thinking. If it is not absolutely clear what the Bible is saying at any one point, we can look to other scripture for clarification. Paul used the illustration of a woman's hair being a natural veil from historical record.

If we look back to Biblical history, we see God commanding the priests to wear a head covering. Considering this, it was obviously not wrong for men to wear a covering on their head while ministering or praying then, and in fact some, at least, were commanded to do so.

Since, at least, as I understand it, it is not wholly clear in I Corinthians 11 whether or not, an additional non-natural covering is needed for women and conversely for men, it would make sense to align it with other commands God has given. It is true that God could have changed the command due to a change in the Testaments. If this is the case though, I feel He would have clearly and unambiguously showed this, either in making I Corinthians 11 clearer and separating the issue of long hair and addtional coverings, or by mentioning it in another passage that clearly stated the fact.

Since this is not done and we are no-where told that such a change has been made, I feel we can reliably look at God's clear commands in the OT as unchanged. I do not mean that we live under the law, but that an external covering was not wrong for men then, therefore still is not wrong now. If this is true, then I Corinthians 11 could not be referring to it being wrong for a man to wear an external covering, but rather for it to be wrong for a man to wear the natural covering (long hair).

I know this is long, but I hope it makes more sense. We have had good friends that believe in external head coverings and I do appreciate anyone who is trying to be faithful to obey God. Personally, I do believe for the above reasons that long hair is the veil or covering Paul intended in this scripture.
JLM

Hi JLM,

Thanks for your reply. I understand what your are saying now. I will have to digest it and think about it a bit.

However it does seem strange that Paul would talk about 'covering' rather than make it very clear that he is referring to 'hair'. He could have said "A man who has long hair when praying or prophesying dishonours his head". BUT this does not make sense does it? You wouldn't have short hair when praying, but then it's OK to have it long! Unless it grows very fast!:) So he would more naturally say "A man who has long hair (anytime) dishonours his head".

What do you think Paul means when he says at the end of this discourse "We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God"?

I wonder if Paul was using the hair thing to show them what they were doing wrong in not honoring our ultimate Head, which is Christ. He then goes to communion in the same way. If there is no Law or Law, uncircumcision or circumcision in Christ no female or male, Jew or Gentile, why would Paul then bring the Law back to the surface and use it as righteousness, when in all other places Paul uses Christ as our righteousness especially plain and simple; 1 Cor 1: 30 and Ga 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Ga 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
Ga 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

And; Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

How could hair length give way to the making us righteousness in any way before God in Christ. I believe that a woman with long hair is beautiful, but no contempt for short hair. I believe a man looks funny with long hair but no contempt for it and especially not making either a reason for salvation or righteousness, that is now Christ who is our covering and Head and our righteousness. I take communion out of Love and rememberance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ who gave Himself for me a sinner.

In Christ: Phillip

QUOTE:
"How could hair length give way to the making us righteousness in any way before God in Christ. I believe that a woman with long hair is beautiful, but no contempt for short hair. I believe a man looks funny with long hair but no contempt for it and especially not making either a reason for salvation or righteousness, that is now Christ who is our covering and Head and our righteousness. I take communion out of Love and rememberance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ who gave Himself for me a sinner."

If the hair is an non-issue why bother to spend so many words on talking about a non-essential? Poor hermeneutics, IMO.

"""If the hair is an non-issue why bother to spend so many words on talking about a non-essential? Poor hermeneutics, IMO."""

That is exactly what I am trying to say, but it does take words as Paul wrote.

IN Christ: Phillip

God always makes a separation as the shepherd separates sheep and goats. He makes that separation among His people by testing them by giving them a very small commandment. It may not be a sin leading to death if someone disobeys that commandment. But His purpose is accomplished. The invisible line is drawn. The 10000 Israelites who drank water at the command of the Lord did not realize that they were being tested by God. The way 9700 Israelites drank water was not a sin. But they missed an opportunity to become a part of God’s choice army. I believe God still makes that separation among His people. It is my opinion that He does that by seeing people’s heart as to how they consider and obey the small, small commandment in His word. I am convinced that it those who take seriously even the small commandments whom the Lord would use to fight His battles and to accomplish His purpose. Those who have ears to hear let them hear.

El-Bethel - you write "I am convinced that it those who take seriously even the small commandments whom the Lord would use to fight His battles and to accomplish His purpose".

I think no one would disagree with that....BUT what is being debated is if this IS commanded by the Lord!

You have made the mistake of assuming that your interpretation is correct and anyone who questions it has a wrong motive. Maybe people just want to know what is the truth, rather than being told if they don't conform to a particular 'custom' they are being disobedient!

Hi Hey dav,
I have to agree that head coverings are not a commandment of the lord.I find it hard to believe that Paul who fought against the circumsion group would say this was a commandment either.The principle of headship is important and also the effect improper headship has on prayer and prophesy,yours staff

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. Some have written that the Headcovering was only the hair.

If you have read Brother Atnip with an open heart in true "love", (ready therefore to "believe all things", come what may), and yet continue with such an opinion, than I fear you must continue in it still.

If you have studied the earliest Christians after the apostles, and yet believe that they somehow all changed the apostle's teaching from "hair" to a cloth covering all in unison, and all at the same time, and you yet continue with the opinion that it was just "hair", than I greatly fear that you must continue in it still.

2. Some have written that Paul couldn't have meant what he seems to be saying here, because it would be an external requirement, and Paul was supposedly against external requirements.

Paul was against requiring the external requirements of the Old Covenant, not of the New. Recall if you will, that our Lord gave the apostles "binding" authority on earth. The apostles then established the Church, "binding", (or "requiring") such things as they were perfectly led to, by the Holy Spirit. This Apostolic practice handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, is only one such example.

3. Some have written that the Headcovering commandment is divisive, implying that even bringing it up is contrary to the Spirit of Love. But one will perhaps say to me, "Brother Conlon does not accept the Headcovering, and we know he is full of the love of, and is used mightily of God."

Those who invoke the name of anyone other than Jesus and his apostles as some kind of proof of something, expose themselves as possessing a "divisive", "denominational" spirit. I urge you to abandon all such thinking. The apostle warns against those "who compare themselves, by themselves." No, if a teacher is wrong in something, than we must still follow the clear words of Jesus and His apostles...

And besides all this: How do you know that all such teachers, (who currently do not teach and practice the Headcovering), never will?

4. To the Reader who is seeking and hungering for God's righteousness with all of his or her heart:

God bless you, and keep you in His Way. Do not let ANYONE cause you to depart from it, neither to the left hand, nor to the right. Fill yourself with all the fullness of God: in all His Love, and in all His Wisdom, which only is found perfectly in the very words of Jesus and His apostles.

Finally:

I give thanks to God for every Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher and Pastor in the Church today, for they are good gifts from the Father of heaven, who help us in the Way. I know that we all have much to learn from them, as well as from each other. Let us go forth together then, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, and seeking to bear one another's burdens, for the Love of God and one another.

Be well all, and God bless everyone who reads.

Sincerely,
Doug

QUOTE:
"But one will perhaps say to me, "Brother Conlon does not accept the Headcovering, and we know he is full of the love of, and is used mightily of God."

Those who invoke the name of anyone other than Jesus and his apostles as some kind of proof of something, expose themselves as possessing a "divisive", "denominational" spirit. I urge you to abandon all such thinking. The apostle warns against those "who compare themselves, by themselves."

Our now-retired pastor used to say when people use the excuse that so-and-so is very spiritual and they do not wear a head-covering that they did not die for our sins. Others can help us along life's pathway, but they can also hinder, so we must be alert to this probability. Having said this, wearing or promoting the use of the head-covering will not guarantee one entrance into heaven. One only gets there through the Blood of Jesus Christ and by allowing his Spirit to regenerate us from a filthy scumbag to a saint. As we grow we learn and so we follow the Lamb wheresoever he leads. When we are yoked together with Him it is not bad at all. He is gentle but always urging us onto greater heights. And, I so want to cooperate with the Lamb in this journey, even if it means wearing a head-covering. I find it a pleasure to do so.

Blessings.

Hi All,
This verse comes to mind
Acts 15
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. 30 The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.

I think if we refrain like the gentiles here from the above we do well!
The problem we have in this debate as I see it is both sides genuinely believe their understanding which can lead to two types of church
Type one-A church that broadly dosent believe in a cloth covering but if others want to use a covering when they pray it is ok to do so even if it seen as a little odd.
Type Two- A Church that broadly believes that women should wear a cloth when praying.The problem with the second type is that they wont allow non covered women to pray and will enforce the head covering rule and thus excluding many people women and men from the church.

This message on the whole to me wasnt an encouraging message but we do well if we refrain the things mentioned above

Yours Staff

Dear Sister,

You quoted Acts 15:22-31 to apparently imply that Christians need not obey the Headcovering. However, it should be noted what the apostles were specifically addressing in their letter to gentile believers. The following verses establish the reason for the letter, and therefore its actual context:

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Acts 15:1

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15:5

The Acts 15 Jerusalem council letter dealt specifically with Gentile believers and their relationship to the requirements of the OLD Covenant. With regard to them, therefore, you will do well to refrain from those four things mentioned therein.

This letter has no bearing however on the believer's relationship, (both Jew or Gentile), to the requirements of the New Covenant. We find out what those are in the rest of the writings of apostles.

You continue:
"The problem we have in this debate as I see it is both sides genuinely believe their understanding which can lead to two types of church
Type one-A church that broadly dosent believe in a cloth covering but if others want to use a covering when they pray it is ok to do so even if it seen as a little odd.
Type Two- A Church that broadly believes that women should wear a cloth when praying.The problem with the second type is that they wont allow non covered women to pray and will enforce the head covering rule and thus excluding many people women and men from the church."

This need not be a problem. Churches are free to establish what they want to regarding doctrine and practice, and people are free to attend or not. Such freedom is not a problem.

You conclude:
"This message on the whole to me wasn't an encouraging message but we do well if we refrain the things mentioned above"

Please, by all means, seek with a true heart whatever will encourage you in the Lord. The days are coming when we all will need all the encouragement we can get.

I have not taken time to answer the questions of some, or to correct the arguments of others, because I was trying to force anyone to believe anything. Rather, I have been writing for the seeking soul; for the one who really is questioning things and is actually open to hear the answers, (if there were any), for all the myriad reasons that the modern western Church gives for departing from the Headcovering practice.

Our brothers and sisters from centuries past, the vast majority of the Church for the past two thousand years who have followed the apostle's Headcovering tradition, are gone. They cannot answer for themselves.

Be well,
Doug

Dear Brother Blaine,

You asked:
"Where did Jesus ever teach that women had to wear a covering when praying? I would like to see an answer to that question, please."

I take you to mean, "Where did Jesus Himself ever teach with His own mouth that women had to wear a covering when praying?"

If that is your meaning, then I would say:

Nowhere, to my knowledge.

If that settles it for you, than that must be fine with me.

Be well Brother,
Doug

its not about what jesus did and didnt teach, tho we no what jesus taught is mosly binding upon us all

i say mostly becasue ,he did teach to offer sacrafice accoring to the law ,and we no we are not to do that

but the doctrine of the apostals ,which in the the book of the acts the believes continued

jesus did say i have much more to say to you but you cannot bare it ,but when the holy spirit come he will teach you ,,this became part of the apostals doctrine ,,which is a misnomer ,,becasue it is the doctrine of christ spoken through the holy spirit ,given by uneqek revalation to his choosen ones

most of the letters of the new testament are writtern in blood red letters and are binding

In regard to whether Jesus addressed this issue here is a very interesting account in John 12v3.

"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment".

So Mary, who by this time was well known to Jesus and we know He often stayed at the house of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, wiped His feet with her hair.

1/ She was obviously not wearing a head covering.
2/ Jesus did not stop her from doing it, in fact commended her (see v.7)
3/ She was not alone with Jesus, but all the disciples were there. i.e she was in public.
4/ There is nothing in this account that indicates that this was an issue at all with either Jesus or His disciples.

Worth thinking about?

Hi Doug,
My point was the apostles did not over burden the gentiles but sent them instructions that they could bare and a message that would encourage and uplift them.
This message does not do that in my opinion.
What should happen in this case is that their should be a similar report,not putting on people more than they can bare.
Besides this I ask these quesstions:
1-Why is the head covering issue related to prayer and prophesy?
2-What are the consequences of not wearing a headcovering?
Yours Staff

Blaine, you are working hard to disprove the validity of 1Corinthians 11:1-16.

Applying your methods to disprove it I would then have to say your insistence on praying for the persecuted is unwarranted. I am not aware that Jesus told his disciples to pray for them...

Dear Brother,

Briefly, an “argument from silence” is a logical fallacy. Whether a specific detail is mentioned in a story or not proves nothing. All we can say for sure is that her headcovering, if she had one, was not mentioned. "Arguing from Silence", like all other logical fallacies, proves nothing, which is the problem with using them.

However, even with this being the case logically, there are even yet reasonable answers for your and Brother Blaine’s assumptions concerning John 12 and Luke 7:

“1/ She was obviously not wearing a head covering.”

Not “obviously”, dear Brother, for the reason I explained above. And to be reasonable and fair with the text, we ought to imagine a Hebrew woman wearing a headcovering under the Old Covenant, just as the inspired Word of God does in Numbers 5:18.

Specifically in this case, consider if you will: Have you never seen a woman wear the “long veil”? The ends of her long hair may be easily exposed, if necessary, while still keeping the majority of the veil in-place. If Mary were following this Old Covenant custom, she could have performed her extraordinary act of humility and worship, while still wearing the veil.

“2/ Jesus did not stop her from doing it, in fact commended her (see v.7)”

Amen, dear Brother. Yes, this was quite an act of public devotion, for this lady to anoint the Lord’s feet with her own hair, (the feet being the dirtiest part of the body in those “dusty road” days, while the long hair of a lady being one of the cleanest), instead of using some mere cloth or towel usually set aside for the purpose. What an awesome and majestic moment it must have been!

“3/ She was not alone with Jesus, but all the disciples were there. i.e she was in public.”

Yes, I agree. Her’s was a glorious act of humility and reverential awe for all to see.

"4/ There is nothing in this account that indicates that this was an issue at all with either Jesus or His disciples."

Yes. I would say you are correct. Neither should we take issue with what she did.

Be well dear Brother,
Doug

Can someone help me out?

Do we shave because the world has beards?

Or are we more spiritual if we grow a beard. Or do we grow a beard because the world shaves?

In not wanting to be "worldly", should women let the hair on their legs and underarms grow in order to make them distinctive from the world?

Should Christian men with long hair, cut it? How long is long? Should Christian women who are obviously feminine and have short hair, grow it out? Can you tell me what the length in inches should be?

In order to not be "worldly", should Christian women that wear pants, begin wearing ankle length dresses?

Should men stop wearing goatees because the world (especially hollywood) wears them?

And how large of a head covering, doilie should my wife wear? She loves the Lord and loves and respects me but would like to be even more spiritual. Although, I don't want her to be too spiritual (I have told her she can't grow the hair on her legs or underarms).

We want to be spiritual and enlightened and not snobby, so please help us. We don't desire to twist scripture. We want to be accepted by those that are spiritual.

And what about fingernail polish? Of course my wife's hands are so attractive without fingernail polish that I have even asked her to start wearing gloves.

Is there some sort of Christian Burka we could come up with to cover our women completely. You know, men today stumble at just about anything.

And perfume and nice smelling soaps? Give me a break. That's a no brainer. I bet you're thinking I am really not that spiritual if I need help on all these questions. No, you'll be glad to know that I'm not that dense. I already told my wife to bathe only once a week and stop with the nice smelling soaps and perfumes. She confided that she is not too happy about all this, but I told her the cross is not supposed to "feel" good and that she should just be content in feeling more spiritual. And I told her, it will all "grow" on her (excuse the pun).

Once my wife starts wearing dresses all the time, has a body full of hair, doesn't use worldly perfumes, wears a hat and gloves, I'm sure people are gonna get saved left and right. I've already nicknamed her my "NeanderGirl".

How could Paul really write this? I bet some worldly "scribe" change a few words in the Bible.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Thanks for all you help. :-)

Dear Sister,

You wrote:
“My point was the apostles did not over burden the gentiles but sent them instructions that they could bare and a message that would encourage and uplift them.”

My dear Sister, if you love the Lord in truth, then you know that He loves you in the Spirit. With gravity and in all sincerity, I ask you consider the following questions:

Can you bear being shackled to a wall in an underground room, hand and foot, for an hour? For a day? For a month?

Can you bear having a cigarette burn on your back? How about your arm? Your face?

Can you bear being stripped and tortured before a blood-thirsty crowd screaming to see your blood?

Now, let me ask you, my dear Sister:

Can you bear covering your hair when you pray or prophesy? Would you try to, if you believed it was truly God’s Holy will for you?

Does not our Great Heavenly Father possess limitless Oceans of Grace to plentifully bestow upon all the children who ask Him?

Yes, God does call us to do the hard thing sometimes, and history teaches us that God calls His people to go through Very hard things sometimes. But though He has called His Saints to walk through the fire, He has NEVER sent them there empty-handed, and because of the Great Love that He has you and for us all, He NEVER will.

True Love rejoices in the Truth.
True Love bears all things.
True Love believes all things.
True Love hopes all things,
True Love endures all things.

True Love never fails.” I Corinthians 13:6-8

“...Lo, I am with you always! even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:30

What great encouragement; what Love, what consolation to know in our heart of hearts THIS!

You ask:
“1-Why is the head covering issue related to prayer and prophesy?”

The apostle tells us that the reason has to do with something completely separate from Time and one’s own culture: Headship. The Headship of God the Father over Christ, and the Headship of Christ over the Man, and the Headship of the Man over the Woman.

Now, consider if you will the nature of Prayer and Prophesy... In their most basic form, they ultimately come to this: Prayer is ministering TO God. Prophesy is ministering to another, on the BEHALF of God. In prayer and prophesy, we are either speaking to God, or speaking on behalf of God.

Prayer: When a New Covenant priest prays (see Revelation 1:6), he or she approaches to the Holy God through the veil and into the Holy of Holies in Heaven. He or she does not go empty-handed however, (according to the prescribed manner made known to us by the apostles), but with the precious Blood of Jesus Christ. Thoroughly covered with the Blood, and washed through and through and through, this New Covenant priest is pleasing to God and ministers intercessions, giving of thanks, and renderings of praise before God Himself.

Prophesy: When a New Covenant priest “speaks forth” the Word of the Lord, he or she is claiming the unction, the anointing of the Most High God. What an awesome responsibility: to be a representative of God on earth.

Ultimately, proper Headship relationships are to be seen, not only by men, but also apparently even by the angels. The apostle’s inspired tradition is that the men UNCOVER their heads while speaking to God or on behalf of God. This is how the male priest is now to properly approach unto God in prayer, or properly represents Him while speaking on His behalf to others.

On the other hand, the apostle's inspired tradition is that women COVER their heads, while speaking to God, or to others on behalf of God. This is how the female priest properly presents herself before God or while speaking to others on His behalf. Yes, women have been raised up in the New Covenant: they are now to be true Spiritual Priests of God, but they still must follow the prescribed pattern as laid out by the inspired apostles.

Finally, you ask:
“2-What are the consequences of not wearing a headcovering?”

Well, it would depend. Do you know to do right, but do it not? Then that would be sin for you. (James 4:17)

But let me say it this way, dear Sister, because I think it will be helpful in understanding the heart of God towards us, His children:

Let’s say a man asks his dear Wife to make him an apple pie. He loves having Apple Pie for dessert, and his wife knows it. However, she answers him, “No. I have the time and I have the apples, but I don’t want to make you an apple pie. I still love you though. Apple Pies are such little things to me. That’s okay with you, right?”

“Ummm. OK Honey”, he replies. A few months later, he asks her again “Would you please make me an apple pie? I would love a piece of your delicious apple pie.” But she responds again “No, I don’t want to make you an apple pie. But the fact that I don’t want to make you a pie is not big deal. I still love you...”

It may seem like a small thing to her, but it was still important to him. Would he “feel” loved if every time he asked for apple pie, she just said: “No, making him apples pies wasn’t important?”

Another analogy may be helpful:

If I told my wife to expect my Boss home for dinner next Friday night, and when the day came and he and I arrived, if we found the house a wreak and no dinner made, and my wife coming out with a big smile saying “oh..., I didn’t want to prepare anything. It’s not a big deal, right?”: Wouldn’t I be EMBARRASSED before my Boss? Quite.

Just so with our Lord.

Try substituting the word “embarrass” for “dishonour” wherever it occurs in I Corinthians 11:4-5. It gives a more pointed sense to our modern ears, of what it means in the Spiritual Realm to not follow this tradition of the apostle when praying or prophesying.

Thanks for writing and reasoning with me. I appreciate your time dear Sister.

Be well,
Doug

Christians "bear" a lot that they should not have to bear and that the Lord is not asking them to bear. But they are taught incorrectly.

Many use the Bible for themselves (own gain and outward "spirituality") and end up spiritually abusing others, especially their wives. Reminds me of the muslims.

Let's face it. In certain Christian groups if you are to appear spiritual and be accepted to the others then you must conform in your dress and outward appearance.

mikey2 wrote:
Once my wife starts wearing dresses all the time, has a body full of hair, doesn't use worldly perfumes, wears a hat and gloves, I'm sure people are gonna get saved left and right. I've already nicknamed her my "NeanderGirl".

Can you bear covering your hair when you pray or prophesy? Would you try to, if you believed it was truly God’s Holy will for you?
___

Doug
What if I say to you that I have prayed and searched out Gods will in this. What if I said that I have prayed and asked my husband to do so also. What if I say to you that we have searched the Bible for understanding and yet we do not feel the Lord leading us to keep to this practice. What would you say to me and to my husband? Can we still fellowship together, can you look at me and not consider me to be in rebellion because I do not hold to your belief of wearing a head covering all the time? Would you consider my not wearing a head covering dishonoring to my husband?

Just trying to understand your heart and attitudes on this matter. Thank you for taking the time to consider my questions.

in Him
rdg

Hi HeyDave,

You stated "What do you think Paul means when he says at the end of this discourse "We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God"?"

Verse 16 states "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Some have said this means Paul is saying that if anyone wants to argue about this, it is not that important and none of this really matters after all. I would have difficulty with that interpretation due to the fact that Paul just spent 1/2 a chapter writing about it. If it didn't matter, why bother intructing in a non-essential; therefore it appears we must look for another understanding.

The interpretation that makes sense with the context is that Paul is saying we have no custom of contention over such issues. Some things are a matter of opinion, whereas other things are definite and not to be argued over. God has clearly spoken and this is God's way. This is my understanding of this issue. To sum it up, I would understand this to say that God has commanded women to have their heads covered and men to have their heads unconvered and there is no place for arguement over this issue. (This is not to say there is no room for discussion on what the covering exactly is, but whether or not the covering is an issue we should believe in and obey or not.)
JLM

Humor aside, although enjoyable when appropriate.

It is important to remember that taking an argument to an extreme in order to make it appear absurd falls short of wholesome communication. If we are to seek mutual esteem and honor of one another, we should all seek to avoid charaterizing one another in an unfavorable light.

I want to show that there are those who practice the covering of the head in a personal and practical way without falling into the category of extreme that some fear is inevitable. Peace is possible in diversity.

I am an elder of a fellowship with 29 families,several couples, and many older singles. There are sisters who wear feminine, non sensual pants and a headcovering during meetings. There are sisters who wear makeup and cover their heads during meetings. There are also sisters who wear only dresses or long skirts and wear a head covering all the time. There are sisters who do not cover their heads during meetings or at home but have long hair, wear dresses and pants, makeup, some jewelry. There are sisters who put on headcoverings any time they pray, at home and at meetings. There are head coverings of all sizes and colors, small and large, from bandanas, to shawls that wrap around the entire head.

The one thing I have not found in any of our sisters is "contention" about the issue. We have never had a problem arise because of this issue at all. Every sister seeks to have the highly valued meek and quiet spirit in the sight of God, both those who cover and those who do not.

The sisters in our fellowship do not judge one another, they live their conviction before God and according to their husband's desire. They respect the boundaries that God has established, especially the boundary of "let wives be subject to their own husbands."

We have no problem here. The unity of the Spirit is preserved in the bond of peace. None of us live to ourselves alone, nor do we die to ourselves alone. Since we live to the Lord and die to the Lord, we are the Lord's and therefore we do not judge one another.

Those who do cover, do not judge those who do not. Those who do not cover do not judge those who do. WE ARE THE LORD'S.

makrothumia

If that were true then you are basically saying this is a doctrine and we would see this being taught in the other churches in the NT, which it is not.

Also, doctrines of Christ and the church are supported by more than one scripture passage. This one is not.

Your arguments are not convincing.

Why is this not spoken about in other epistles by Paul?

What was he really trying to convey to only the Corinthians?

Daer Brother Blaine,

If the Lord has laid the burden of prayer upon your heart, perhaps it would be best to start a new thread with this as the subject.

Maybe one of the reasons that prayer rooms are not filled, is that prayer closets with the doors shut behind them are. Our Father sees those who pray in secret as well as those who are counted in the prayer rooms.

The apostle Paul chose to write on this topic while believers were enduring great persecutions. Would you accuse him of being "religious". I think not.

makrothumia

Amen, Approved and Martyr.

This is nothing more than a religious spirit no matter how they try to package it.

This is very superficial.

mikey2

I'm not sure who you were responding to, but I would say, we cannot throw a scripture away because we do not see it a second time in the Bible. Otherwise we would have to throw away every scripture that is not repeated twice or more.

I would agree that when something is only referred to once, we need to be even more careful in our interpretation. If there is any other logical interpretation that does not contradict anything else in scripture, we also cannot say our interpretation has to be right. If something is clearly stated though, we should not discard it even if we do not find it in another scripture.

QUOTE:
"Faith is a heart issue. It is faith and faith alone that pleases God. Not the external headware."

James 2:14-26 NASB:
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

18But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Blaine, I shared these verses for your consideration although I am not certain it will minister to you but it may to someone else. But I do have one question for you.

After communism fell in eastern Europe, many church groups thronged the area bringing their brand of Christianity. Many Christians lamented this influx of western Christianity, saying they are so liberal and the damage they wrought to the persecuted church was tragic.

Many of these Christian ladies wore a head covering. Now my question to you is did Voice of the Martyrs go in there and tell them it was unnecessary? All I need is a yes or no answer.

ginnyrose

So makrothumia is in a fellowship where there are women on both sides of the issue and there is no contention about this.

Those who do cover, do not judge those who do not. Those who do not cover do not judge those who do. WE ARE THE LORD'S.

So, why are we discussing this?

Dear Sister,

You wrote:
"What if I say to you that I have prayed and searched out Gods will in this. What if I said that I have prayed and asked my husband to do so also. What if I say to you that we have searched the Bible for understanding and yet we do not feel the Lord leading us to keep to this practice. What would you say to me and to my husband?"

I appreciate you taking the time to write about where you are, and how you got there.

If you have carefully read Brother Atnip's article, as well as all the subsequent arguments in favor of this practice, and still do not believe, I would ask you to please go now to page 5 in this Thread, and read the third post from the bottom.

God bless you and your husband.

Be well in the Lord,
Doug

Dear Brother,

You wrote:
"It is important to remember that taking an argument to an extreme in order to make it appear absurd falls short of wholesome communication."

Thank for taking the time to write your post. It is much appreciated in the Lord.

Be well,
Doug

Dear Sister,

You wrote:
"James 2:14-26 NASB:
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
...
I shared these verses for your consideration although I am not certain it will minister to you but it may to someone else."

This truth is certainly a vital part of the "true grace, wherein we stand." May the Church as a whole come to see this.

Thank you for sharing this dear Sister.

Be well,
Doug

Dear Sister,

You wrote:
"...why are we discussing this?"

Thanks for taking the time to write. This is taken from page 6 of this Tread, the second post down:

"I have not taken time to answer the questions of some, or to correct the arguments of others, because I was trying to force anyone to believe anything. Rather, I have been writing for the seeking soul; for the one who really is questioning things and is actually open to hear the answers, (if there were any), for all the myriad reasons that the modern western Church gives for departing from the Headcovering practice.

Our brothers and sisters from centuries past, the vast majority of the Church for the past two thousand years who have followed the apostle's Headcovering tradition, are gone. They cannot answer for themselves."

Be well,
Doug

Hi Doug,
I didnt spot it the first time you replied and I would have corrected you then but its" Dear brother" .lol
Thanks for your thoughtful replies and analogies.

In Christ their are neither male or female.The veil is rent, all freely go in,we are all priests.
I cant recall male and female priests in the word but just priests.
Later in the chapter Paul makes it clear that christians that have taken the bread and wine incorrect way have become sick.Their is a kind of spiritual mechanics going on and the consequence is sickness.
Their is no such effects of any kind when it comes to head covering and their would have to be a universal effect if it was a church rule or an appostolic command or indeed a sin.
I have a feeling that the headship of the man over the women not the cloth covering is important when it comes to prayer and prophesy by women and the headship of the man under christ.Why is it important?,my guess is that if we are not in proper headship our pray and prophesy can be influenced by Satan.I think if we are not in proper headship the functionality of pray and prophesy is effected.I think that a women who do not wear a cloth but are in right relationship/headship edify the church properly.
The problem I see is that if the Church leadership teach that headcovering is nessacary then all women who dont use the cloth will be excluded in part or total from what God has for them in the church.This outcome would be a nonsense.Thanks Doug

Your brother..... Staff

Very good word, staff.

Martyr, sad to see you go. I agree with what you say. It is very sad. Those that are imprisoned are not even thinking about head coverings.

Doug, do you belong to a fellowship like makrothumia, where it is acceptable whether sisters wear a head covering or not? Would you belong to such a fellowship?

Hi staff,

I apologize about that! I don't know where I picked up the "sister". Very sorry!

You wrote:
"In Christ their are neither male or female."

Yes. Our salvation is the same, whether we are male or female. Being one or the other does not affect our personal salvation in Christ.

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26

You wrote:
"The veil is rent, all freely go in,we are all priests."

No. The veil, that is to say "Christ's flesh" has been rent for us, but we all do not freely go in. We Must come with the Blood:

"But into the [Temple] went the high priest alone once every year, NOT without blood..." Hebrews 9:7

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the BLOOD of Jesus,

By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

And having an high priest over the house of God;

Let us draw near with a TRUE heart in full assurance of FAITH, having our hearts sprinkled [WITH THE BLOOD] from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10:19-22

You wrote:
"I cant recall male and female priests in the word but just priests."

Yes. Sisters are priests now too. They have full access to the Heavenly Temple and to the throne of God's grace.

However, the implication of your statement seems to imply that you don't believe that men and women are to have different functions in the Body of Christ today, while we are still in this life. Men and women, though both equally a part of the one "Seed" of Abraham (see back to Galatians 3), are yet given different commandments in the New Testament. Don't you see? Saying that Paul saw no functional difference between men and women and yet gave them different functional commandments would itself be nonsense.

You wrote:
"Their is no such effects of any kind when it comes to head covering and their would have to be a universal effect if it was a church rule or an appostolic command or indeed a sin."

I think your conjecture here misses the point. Does there need to be some temporal, visual punishment for a spiritual principle to be true? Of course not. You ought to know that Paul already did tell us there was a consequence for failing to properly represent our Head before men and the angels: The dishonour; the embarrassment of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, presumably before His enemies: Satan and the other fallen angels.

Our Lord takes the shame well though, doesn't He? Through thick and thin, and in all the ways we may fail Him, "His mercy is new every morning."

You wrote:
"I have a feeling that the headship of the man over the women not the cloth covering is important when it comes to prayer and prophesy by women and the headship of the man under christ.Why is it important?,my guess is that if we are not in proper headship our pray and prophesy can be influenced by Satan.I think if we are not in proper headship the functionality of pray and prophesy is effected.I think that a women who do not wear a cloth but are in right relationship/headship edify the church properly."

There is a lot of conjecture here. Accepting what the apostle actually told us, instead of dismissing his inspired instructions and his inspired reasons for them, would be a much wiser course of action, in my opinion.

You wrote:
"The problem I see is that if the Church leadership teach that headcovering is nessacary then all women who dont use the cloth will be excluded in part or total from what God has for them in the church."

You worry about a conjecture that you have conjured up in your own mind. God doesn't work according to our notion of things. His way is not "our way", and that is the point. I hope many do see this very important point, but one cannot see what one does not know.

I trust that the ones suffering and imprisoned for our Lord today have made the ultimate decision to obey everything in God's word according to the light they have, even if they think doing so would cause them hardship. God bless them for their courage in doing so. Their faithfulness animates courage in some of our hearts in the West as well.

Be well and thanks for reading,
Doug

Makrothumia.

Thank you for your post. I can see why you are an Elder. The wisdom of your church fellowship is refreshing.

I know that I started the questioning of this issue from the original post put on from Greg. My only intention was that we should be open to question and discuss issues like this, as they are not as clear cut as some would have us believe.
I think the experience of the sisters in your fellowship bears this out. If it were a clear cut issue there would not such diversity of practice!
Unfortunately some do not want to allow us the liberty of coming to our own convictions on questionable issues and insist that we conform to their conviction.

So I say to us all, please let us not argue any more. Discuss with openess and grace, but please do not put down and belittle those who differ from you on this issue.

If your conviction is to cover your head, then it would be a sin for you not to. On the other hand do not cover your head if you are not convinved on this, but are just following a church custom. Let peace and liberty rule, we each are accountable to our own Master and not to another.

Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls. (Romans 14:4).

I am disgusted at some of the responses people have posted on the forum.
I am a Christian woman, one of literally a very few that wears a head covering in the UK.
A couple of years back after much prayer and studying I realised that 1 cor 11 is certainly saying that women should wear a covering when praying or prophesying, which as we know should be without ceasing. So I wear a covering at home, in church, and in public.
When I first started to wear my covering it was the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do, especially to face family and friends, when I knew none of them would approve, and knowing that some would have a mocking spirit. On the other hand I also knew that my faithfulness to my LORD, my saviour, who saved me, (a dreadful sinner who really does deserve hell) is far more important that what any other human being on this earth may think.
I have come to realise that the persecution actually comes from the church, and that people in the world find my covering quite a testimony. I now thank God for this wonderful veil that I wear upon my head that my blessed LORD gave me for my own good, and his glory.
To GOD be the glory for his wonderful perfect ways, and his love for me.

The covering is also part of modest dress, but in this country not only have women removed their coverings. They also show off other parts of thier bodies that should only be seen by their husband. Not really much of a light is it?? Are we not supposed to be a light, and also provoke Jews to jealousy to lead them to their messiah. How can we do that if many Christians are dressing as total heathens, following the dress code of the world (which encourages total immodesty) and not Gods ways.

I am very very alone in this heathen land, and I sincerely pray that one day soon the LORD will lead me to a church that has a desire for holiness. purity and love.

The LORD bless you Doug for your loving responces

"But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold." -Job 23:10

Dear Sister Keepstanding

I was also saddened by the sarcasm and demeaning nature of some of the prior post, but I am NOT disgusted with those who posted them. How will the world know that we are His disciples when we are "disgusted" with one another?

We do not right a wrong by falling into the other ditch.

makrothumia

Dear makrothumia

I apologise, im not disgusted at the people, but at the sarcasm and demeaning nature of some of the posts. I will gladly serve these people, and would help them if in need.

Thank you dear sister, I was hoping that was your heart.

We must all remember that our speech, even our posts, should be seasonsed with salt and full of grace.

We should all pursue what Paul exhorted Timothy to seek,
Seriousness, and soundness of speech that can not be condemned.

Men will give an account on the day of judgment for every unwholesome post they have written. This should call us to intercede for those who are in danger rather than join them in their error.

makrothumia

Reading through this thread has been very informative. I have learned some things and in some ways it has helped to strengthen what the LORD has been showing me on this topic. I realize this is not about me being wrong or someone else being wrong. Its about what GOD is showing me and doing in my life. In the end I really feel confident in where I am on this matter. I have prayed, I have read the posts, I have searched HIS word, I have sought out the thoughts of those I know love the LORD deeply, I have shared and listened to my own husband and I realize that I can walk in what GOD has for me in this. My husband knows my heart, he knows I honor and respect him. He knows that I trust and submit to his authority in our home. The true measure of the life of a CHRISTIAN is not outward appearances in any matter, its the heart. A heart and life that is filled with the Holy Spirit will love the light and truth of GOD and that will reflect in our daily living one to another!!

God bless
Maryjane

Sometimes sarcasm is needed to wake people up. I doubt if Paul will give an account for his sarcasm in Galatia.

He had to resort to that because of the ridiculousness of the Galatians and Peter to believe this "other" Gospel.

You would not indict Paul would you? And I am not putting myself on his level, but he did use sarcasm to wake people up.

My dear sister Kepstanding,

I truly appologise if you have been offended by anything I have written, that was not my intention. It was only to have an open and honest discussion of the subject that was posted by Greg so we could consider what the scripture says on this subject.

I think the last post by Mary Jane is what should be the result of these discussions. She does not tell us her conclusions, but whatever they are, some of the points (could be on either side) have helped her in this.

So again, please do not be offended by the questioning of this issue as we all seak to find out that which is pleasing unto the LORD.

Edit: I also meant to add that it should also be considered that offense can be had on either side of this debate. So when it is said or implied "that those who question the practice of head covering just don't want to obey the LORD", this is just as wrong and demeaning. We should consider both sides I think.

The hand extended to COMFORT, and the hand stretched out to STRIKE: both are used of the Lord.

Like the Rod and Staff of our Great Shepherd, He uses the One to refine the heart of its native pride, and the Other to pick us up and encourage us when we are wounded.

I therefore sincerely thank all who dealt thus with me in this Thread.

If there are to be no more serious questions or arguments against this ancient practice, I will gratefully lay down “my pen” on the subject.

Be well in the Lord everyone,
Doug

Ditto to Appolus, MaryJane.

You wrote:
“A woman who reads this in the bible concerning Paul's teaching here, should not in any way start wearing any head covering because Paul say so, even Paul would say, if your not submitted to your husband you may as well shave your head because your a disgrace to him though you be wearing a headcovering.”

I am sure you mean well with your overall post, but you have misquoted and misrepresented Paul, and therefore serious problems arise from what you have written.

It sounds nice to just say: "Don't worry about it. If your husband tells you not to obey, than you are safe." For the love of God and man, we must not be so hasty to give our counsel, especially when the Scriptures directly contradict you. You are potentially setting our Sisters up to fail.

We learn from Acts 5 that though a wife should reverentially obey her husband in all things, she may NOT obey him to SIN. The Holy Spirit’s inclusion in the Book of Acts of the tragic case of Sapphira choosing to follow her husband in disobedience, and her subsequent death, is the Spirit’s Warning to us in this matter.

This account leaves no doubt that a wife’s obedience goes only as far as all things "indifferent", but it must never cross over the threshold of actually SINNING against the light she has, against the Lord.

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.” I Peter 3:1-2

It should be evident when we remember Ananias and Sapphira, that if a wife’s husband “obeys not the Word”, it is not her conspiring with him to do what she is convicted is wrong that will win him to obedience. Rather, it will be her godly life "of" obedience to the Word, combined with a quiet spirit and reverential respect for her husband, that "will win him" to it.

PLEASE. By all means: When you give your advice concerning sin and obedience, please be diligent to also prove it from the text of Holy Scripture, in its context.

Thank you for taking the time to read and reason.

God bless,
Doug

QUOTE:
"I am disgusted at some of the responses people have posted on the forum."

I can relate - exactly.

As you have learned, it is to God one must give account. All the sarcasm in the world should not interfere in our relationship/obedience with Him. When we stand before God we will have to give account for ourselves only - we cannot rightly blame another person for our failures - to do so would imply that God's grace was not sufficient for us.

God bless you - I am very encouraged by your testimony.

ginnyrose

Hi Doug,
Just on your comment below my point was that men are priest and women are priests but he didnt say they were two different types of priests,just priests.

(You wrote:
"I cant recall male and female priests in the word but just priests."

Yes. Sisters are priests now too. They have full access to the Heavenly Temple and to the throne of God's grace.

However, the implication of your statement seems to imply that you don't believe that men and women are to have different functions in the Body of Christ today, while we are still in this life. Men and women, though both equally a part of the one "Seed" of Abraham (see back to Galatians 3), are yet given different commandments in the New Testament. Don't you see? Saying that Paul saw no functional difference between men and women and yet gave them different functional commandments would itself be nonsense.)

I can only conject the workings out of a leadership that would enforce the wearing of veils or headcovering for women to pray and prophesy.How could such a leadership allow a women to prophesy or pray out loud if they genuinely thought that it was wrong for them to do so.I think head covering is just devisive in this example.

Isnt this conjecture-?
, presumably before His enemies: Satan and the other fallen angels.

Also why is it mentioned for prayer and prophesy?Why not all the time?
I think that their are genuine christians who hold to a belief of head covering and also that their are christians that just want old testament rules and regulations mixed up with grace.
I dont believe that head covering is relevant for today but if someone else thinks it nessacary for them then I will have no problems with that.I do think that headship is as important today as it was then.

Thanks for your reply,Yours staff

Dear keepstanding,

I too greatly appreciate your testimony dear Sister, and the courage God has given you to stand alone, (though you know you are never alone...)

May our gracious Heavenly Father raise up helpers and comforters to come along beside you and help you on your way. May you be filled with all His peace in believing.

God bless you and keep you today,

Be well,
Doug

Of course it was cultural. Thank you for posting that.

What is the outward sign that a man is loving his wife?

Is it not fruit?

What is the outward sign that a women is respecting her husband.

Is it not fruit, also?

It is most certainly not a piece of cloth.

In Christ,
Sarah

I think I would rather take my risks with the Bible, including the Apostle Paul rather then John MacArthur. The Apostle Paul saw the LORD and was taught by him. To me his credentials are greater then MacArthurs.

With respect sister Ginnyrose, that comment is a bit of a 'slap down'.
Obviously John McArthur is not being set up against the Apostle Paul, we are all trying to come to the correct understanding of what Paul wrote and McArthur is just one of those, as is Mike Atnip! Is it only OK to quote someone who agrees with us?

If we cannot discuss these things in a decent and respectful way, then best not to post I would say.

BTW, you still have not answered my question from a number of posts back (in fact nobody has), which is...
If the men in you assembly wear hats and remove them when praying or coming together for spiritual meeting, why is this OK, but not OK for the women to cover their heads only in the same circumstances, when the Apostle Paul states the same conditions for both men and women?

This is a genuine question and not trying to put down anyone who chooses to wear a covering. I'm happy for all to do whatever their conviction is. However there are some who are posting on here, such as yourself and Doug who insist that every women should do as you do and call it a SIN if they don't! I would say that stance in itself could very well be a SIN.

With love.

EDIT: I sense there is a 'party' spirit developing on this thread. It seems that there is a tendancy for putting down those who are not of ones particular position and a banding together of those who do agree. This is ungodly and the flesh (see 1 Corinthians 1 & 2 on factions). Maybe it is time to finish this discussion?

Dear friends,

This is not about emotions or what you feel your heart is telling you to do. The bible clearly tells us that Women must be in subjection to their husband/father, and we have not reached perfection yet (if you have let me know because I would like to meet you) so we can all fall into the flesh, which is why when we do fall into the flesh we must pray that God will help us by the power of his Holy Spirit to overcome sin in that area.
In my last post I should have responded in a more loving tone, I have repented and pray that the LORD will help me respond to people (no matter how sad they make me feel) in a more loving manner in the future. Praise the LORD for helping me to grow in this area, and may he continue to shape my character for his purpose’s forevermore.

The question is what does 1 Cor 11 teach? not how do we feel about it. We absolutely must obey the word of God. A heart for the LORD will obey his word, by the power of his Holy Spirit.

Another good article on this is
http://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/covertrc.html

I am not of any specific denomination or do I follow any particular person. I am a Christian who has a desire to follow the footsteps of my LORD in this spiritual battle, but this is a good article.

Dear Dave the article above has a good answer for your question.

does paul say in his letter this is a custom

can anyone here explain how john came up with that as interratation ,,,,

or do you bretheren think that this is an entrence

what verses do you beleieve he is interpreting

do you brothers and sisters think we should at least have understand how some one came up with a conclusion like this befor we except it as a literel interprataion

I almost slipped this morning, I almost gave into temptation and sin by coming here to post again...but then GOD just spoke to me and I realized that I don't have anything to prove to anyone. I just need to fallow JESUS and love all of you here.

So in that note, I just wanted to say I love you all very much. I pray for you today to have a wonderful weekend in our LORD JESUS. It is suppose to snow here tomorrow, imagine snow in October!! GOD is good and faithful.

God bless you all
maryjane

Dear Sister,

Having read your writings, they strike me as coming from one with a tender conscience, and a sweet, and willing heart. You seem to want to believe all things, according to the light you have. This is a precious trait in the sight of our Heavenly Father.

As for the "sin" of writing here, you must know that not everyone carries the same burden of the Lord. As for these posts and this topic, tt may now just be best to let it be for now, and see what God does with it all.

If you are so led, go in peace (from this Thread) and may God truly bless you and your dear family in the meantime.

"Sweets for the Sweet", dear Sister. God knows how to care for His own...

Be well,
Doug

Dear Sister,

You wrote:
"What is the outward sign that a man is loving his wife?

Is it not fruit?

What is the outward sign that a women is respecting her husband.

Is it not fruit, also?

It is most certainly not a piece of cloth.

In Christ,
Sarah"

All true, as you wrote it.

But let me ask you and all others who dismiss what the text literally says:

What is the outward sign that a man is respecting his GOD?

Is it not the "obedience of faith?" "Yes", I hear the readers say. In what things then? In "great" things? "Yes!", you say... In "small" things? In ALL things...? (Consider...)

You know that you are free to believe or not believe, accept or not accept, do or not do.

Go in peace. Let it be.

Be well in the Lord,
Doug

Edited this post to be obedient to what God showed
me.

rdg

Dear Brother:

You wrote:
"BTW, you still have not answered my question from a number of posts back (in fact nobody has), which is...
If the men in you assembly wear hats and remove them when praying or coming together for spiritual meeting, why is this OK, but not OK for the women to cover their heads only in the same circumstances, when the Apostle Paul states the same conditions for both men and women?"

I answered this particular argument of yours more than once in this Thread in my previous posts to you. Instead of leaving the impression that it was never answered, which is untrue, please just state that you disagreed with my answers. This would at least be fair to the "late" reader of this Thread.

You wrote:
"However there are some who are posting on here, such as yourself and Doug who insist that every women should do as you do and call it a SIN if they don't! I would say that stance in itself could very well be a SIN."

It is only sin to those who know it to be true. Do you know it to be true? ...No?

Well then, if you yourself will not enter into this practice, (as multitudes of our brothers and sisters have in ages past), why do you try to hinder those who would?

What dangers will we face by doing so, that our brothers and sisters did not face before us? Was our God able to give them the victory in all their tribulations then? Is His Arm now shortened? Can He not Save us from all our difficultues now?

You wrote:
"EDIT: I sense there is a 'party' spirit developing on this thread. It seems that there is a tendancy for putting down those who are not of ones particular position and a banding together of those who do agree."

You will not grudge me my duty of love, will you, in encouraging the tender in Spirit? Dear sisters who have the courage to post, even in the teeth of such raging mockery against them? No dear Brother, you must not grudge me this.

Be well in the Lord,
Doug

Dear Brother,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate you taking the time to explain how you have to this point come to your conclusions.

I noticed you asked a question though, when you gave your last response:

"That is why he says after all that he said that 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Now, what is Paul saying here?"

Well, it wouldn't make much sense for Paul to spend a whole bunch of words explaining that something should be done in a "proper" way, or else it would be shameful to Jesus Christ, and then at the end say, "but don't worry, it doesn't matter anyway. Do whatever you want."

I guess one thing we could do, after we pray for God to show us what this all means, is go and ask one of the early Christians near to the time of the apostles. Perhaps they could shed some light...

For instance, we read that in northern Africa, a dispute arose concerning whether by "woman", Paul meant only married women must wear the veil, or both married and unmarried women must wear the veil, since the word "woman" in Greek carried both meanings.

Tertullian, an elder in the Church, decided to find out. Instead of debating the text alone, he just took the time to go to the Corinthians and ask them. He tells us:

“If any,' [Paul] says, 'is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor has the Church of God.' 1 Corinthians 11:16.

He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the removal thereof he uses the [word with the broader meaning]: not [specifying] the "virgin"[only], on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; [but], on the other hand, naming “every WOMAN” [1Cor. 11:5], ...So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him."

"In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil [even] their unmarried women."

"What the apostles taught, their disciples approve."

Well, my Brother, do we join with the Corinthians then, and understand it the way Paul taught them, or not?

This is the question before us.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position, and for having the patience to hear mine. God will not leave you unrewarded for your faithful efforts in seeking the truth, whatever it may be.

Be well my friend,
Doug

Well brother I was going to answer you point by point because you mis-understand me completely. However I have decided against it as all it will do is cause more strife!

I suggest we do what you suggested prior to your last 2 or 3 posts, which is leave it be for now. Also please read through all my posts and I hope you will see I was not in any way trying to 'hinder' anyone in their particular view. Pot and kettle come to mind here!

You know that you are free to believe or not believe, accept or not accept, do or not do.

Hello Doug,

This is not what the Holy Spirit tells me. I am NOT free to believe or not. Where did you get that?

But let me ask you and all others who dismiss what the text literally says:

Do you take all texts literally? I don't think that you mean that?

The Bible is a spiritual book and if we miss the spiritual applications to the heart, it matters not how much of it you take literally. And the Bible is also a cultural book. Do we imitate all the middle eastern customs in the Bible?

What is the outward sign that a man is respecting his GOD?

I was not aware there was an outward sign that showed we (women) respected God as God looks on the heart. What is the outward sign for men?

Would you say that Jackie Pullinger does not respect God?

There are many other great women of faith that had the hand of God on their lives who did not obsess about "outward signs". Why would God have His hand upon them in such a powerful way if He thought He was being disrespected by them? What you are saying does not make any sense.

I only seem to dismiss what the text says, because I don't interpret it LITERALLY as you do. I interpret it CULTURALLY as it was meant at that time, so it cannot be said of me that I "dismiss" it. Please continue to read.

The reason that it seems to many of us that you are trying to fit a square block into a round hole is that this was only mentioned in Corinth because of cultural implications regarding the heathen priestesses.

While commentators and very sincere Bible students greatly differ on this question, there is some general agreement on two things. First, if God wants women to wear head coverings today, this is the only action in the New Testament that God does not fully explain. Second, no other book or passage in the New Testament deals with this issue and we have a limited amount of information in this chapter about women wearing a head covering (veil).

Warren Wiersbe (First Corinthians, p. 603) aptly described part of the problem: “Eastern society at that time was very jealous over its women. Except for the temple prostitutes, the women wore long hair and, in public, wore a covering over their heads…For the Christian women in the church
to appear in public without the covering, let alone to pray and share the Word, was both daring and blasphemous.” The Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible (p. 326) offers similar information: “Required head coverings for women are an Eastern custom. A Middle Assyrian law required that all women except prostitutes and slaves be veiled. Jewish
communities of the New Testament period were strict about this. The Mishnah (A.D. 250) held that failure to comply was grounds for divorce(Ketubin 7:6). A moral, unmarried woman even wore a veil in front of her parents. Removal of the veil was a sign of disgrace (3 Macc. 4:6). Philo of
Alexandria indicated that this regularly worn covering was a symbol of modesty (Special Laws 3.56; Josephus Ant. 3.270). Women charged with adultery had this veil removed.”

Even now every culture has specific customs, one of which may involve males removing their hats. In the United States it used to be normal for men to remove their hats when the Pledge of Allegiance was said or the National Anthem was sung. Males have also traditionally removed their hats when attending worship. Men who refused to respect these cultural traditions were seen as disrespectful, just as the Corinthian women would have been regarded if they rejected the veils (verse 5) and men would have been disrespectful if they had worn a covering (verse 4).

Women have also been expected to observe some cultural practices, some of which are found in marriage. In many wedding ceremonies it has been customary for a bride to say she will “obey” her husband and the bride traditionally accepts her husband’s last name to show her recognition
and acceptance of his authority (headship). Paul dramatically emphasized the need to observe customs such as the head coverings at Corinth by appealing to both the Godhead (11:3) and angels (11:10).

Today it is still very important to respect the customs in the culture where we live or work. This means we respect the way people talk, dress,think, etc. It is also necessary to live in such a way where males and females carry out their God given roles (i.e. men behave like men and
women behave like women).

The custom of wearing veils is also related to what Paul said at the end of the previous chapter (in 10:25-26 he spoke of buying food that may have been offered to idols). Paul said Christians could purchase this food if they “asked no questions.” If Christians asked shop owners about the origin of food, they would have been regarded as odd and probably gained a bad reputation among the unsaved—things the Corinthians church did not need. Paul knew Christianity was a new religion and it was important
for saints to leave a good impression with the unsaved (compare Tit. 2:5, “that the word of God be not blasphemed”). This is partly why he spoke of being “all things to all men” in 9:20, 22; 10:33. If the Corinthian women chose to stop wearing veils or opted for short hair (compare verse 15), they would not have been “all things to all people.” They would have violated local customs, offended outsiders, and very possibly offended fellow
Christians (compare 10:29). Refusing to wear head coverings or follow other customs would have been “an occasion of stumbling” to others (10:32) so this chapter tells women to obey this cultural practice.

Some believe all Christian women in first century times were bound to wear a head covering and this obligation is still in force (i.e. today all women must wear a covering in church assembles). Those who take this view often differ on the specifics of what must be done. Some think a
woman’s covering is her natural hair (this is a difficult explanation to defend, especially in view of verse 7. If a woman’s covering is her natural hair, and men are prohibited from wearing a covering—their natural hair—
only bald men can approach God). Others think a literal covering must be worn (i.e. the natural hair is not enough so an additional covering must be added).

Even now this principle is true (people who do not follow the customs of their society are regarded as bizarre and frequently become an object of derision). When cultural customs do not conflict with the Bible, they should be followed.

Also, there are indications in this chapter that Paul was speaking about a cultural belief instead of a divine command. For instance, he spoke of the shame borne by those who are shaven (verse 6). Since there is no Bible passage that forbids the shaving of a woman’s head, what was the basis for this disgrace? If it was not from God, it must have been society (culture).

Furthermore, since Paul joins shame with the word veil (6b), both the disgrace and the veil seem to have been part of the Corinthians’ culture (way of life).

Paul said nature (phusis) offered some instructions about a woman’s covering (verses 14-15). Why appeal to nature if head coverings are a divine command and a perpetual obligation for Christian women?

Appealing to nature is a possible Biblical argument to prove something (compare Jas. 3:11 where James used nature to argue against improper speech), but this does not seem to be Paul’s purpose in 1 Cor. 11 because he said women “ought” to have a head covering (verse 10).

The Greek language has a word for must (dei) and Paul used this term many times in his writings including this letter (11:19; 15:25, 53). When discussing the veil issue, however, inspiration led him to use a less forceful
word meaning “ought.” When combined with the previous information, the bulk of the evidence, in this author’s judgment, favors the explanation that head coverings were part of the Corinthians’ culture.

Finally, Paul speaks of “in the church” several times in this letter, including this chapter (11:18; 12:28; 14:19, 23, 28, 33, 34, 35). With the exception of verse 16, where he said, “we have no such custom,” the word church is never associated with the head covering. Thus, this author understands verse 16 to mean there was no church custom to wear the veil (i.e. head coverings were a part of society instead of a divine command).

Excerpts taken from http://www.abiblecommentary.com/firstcorinthianschaptereleven.pdf

In Christ,
Sarah

And the Bible is also a cultural book.

Whatever you believe about the covering will be directly influenced by your belief on this topic. The Bible is NOT a cultural book. God's Words transcend ALL cultures. That's not to deny that the Bible relates some things people did that are different from our culture, it's just to say that "No Scripture is of ANY private interpretation."

Amen Creation!

I've thought about these passages of scripture in light of someday getting married. I believe these passages regarding head coverings to be literal. So if the Lord ever brings a girl into my life and marriage is an option... would she submit to these verses? Considering how the modern church totally blows these verses off, I don't think there is a woman who would accept a literal interpretation.

Then again, maybe I'm a Jeremiah 16...

The Bible is not of any private interpretation and that is why there are Believers throughout the world that believe this was only in Corinth. The fact that there are Believers that do wear the head covering does not mean that those who believe it is cultural only, are having their own private interpretation.

There are far two many Christians across denominational, non-denominational and house church lines that interpret it as a cultural admonition to prove that it is not being interpreted "privately". Many also wear it because they DO interpret it culturally and in their country it would be strange for a woman not to wear one. If you were saved in a country with a head-covering, keep wearing it. If you were saved in a country that does not wear head coverings, it is your choice what you want to do. God cares not what is on your head, but rather what is in your heart. Because what is in your heart will be displayed outwardly in your walk before your husband and all men.

At the council of Jerusalem where many Apostles had assembled, what was the final outcome? Remember, that Paul, who had talked about head coverings was also at that council. Here is the outcome.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:28-29

No greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS.

In other words, HEAD COVERINGS are not necessary.

If you believe in a head covering for your wife to be, you will no doubt have no problem finding a wife and then a fellowship that carries on that tradition. There are many that do. You should then be happy with your wife and your congregation and praise the Lord and also do not disfellowship other Believers. The Lord will not be pleased if you wear a head covering but shun those who don't. And vice-versa. I do not shun those who wear head coverings. That is not walking in love.

Much grace and peace to all,
Sarah

Dear Sister,

Thank you for taking the time to write. You make a few specific points and ask a few specific questions, so I should answer them.

You ask:
"This is not what the Holy Spirit tells me. I am NOT free to believe or not. Where did you get that?"

I simply meant you have your free-will. You may believe the information presented in favor of following this practice, or not. You may accept the answers given to all of the arguments that have been pressed against it, or not. Finally, you may do this practice, or you may not. At some point, you make a decision based upon the light you have.

You ask:
"Do you take all texts literally? I don't think that you mean that?"

Yes, dear Sister, many of us believe we should obey the apostles' actual commandments. Their authority was given to them by Jesus Christ Himself, and is binding upon the Church until the end of the world.

You write:
"The Bible is a spiritual book and if we miss the spiritual applications to the heart, it matters not how much of it you take literally."

Just because someone mentions obeying something on the outside, this does not make him a "pharisee" who ignores the heart of the matter on the inside. Our modern western Church is drenched in this almost knee-jerk, "reactionary" mentality that implies someone is a "pharisee", who after he has made the "inside" clean through the power of God, also seeks through that same power, to make the "outside" clean as well.

You ask:
"And the Bible is also a cultural book. Do we imitate all the middle eastern customs in the Bible?"

The Bible was written over thousands of years and in many different cultures. The consistent theme you will find throughout, is God's call to His people to go against the prevailing culture, if need be, to "obey" His voice ONLY.

We do not imitate incidental customs mentioned in the Bible. We do seek to obey the instructions given directly to the Church by Jesus and His apostles. Wherever the culture contradicts these Scriptures, we should choose to follow the Scriptures.

You ask:
"I was not aware there was an outward sign that showed we (women) respected God as God looks on the heart. What is the outward sign for men?"

One sign would be: an uncovered head, during prayer and prophesy.

"God looks at the heart", yes, but does not He who made the eye, not also SEE what we DO outwardly? Does not He who made the ear, not also HEAR what we SAY outwardly?

You ask:
"Would you say that Jackie Pullinger does not respect God?"

I don't know her, but judging of what I have heard of her, I am sure I would learn a lot from her faith and her experiences. That being said, if she doesn't follow this practice, that's between her, her Lord, and her local Church. I might assume she only knows what has been commonly taught in the Churches of the West "against" this practice for most of the 20th century, very similar to the commentary you pasted below your post.

As for other women being used of God who didn't do this or that practice: Well!... dear Sister!, that is "the rule", not "the exception" :O) What I mean is this:

God ALWAYS uses imperfect people. No one has ALL the light on the Scriptures. In fact, some of the Scriptures are actively taught AGAINST, especially in the modern Western Church, even well-meaningly. There is so much of the Scripture that are made obscure in the minds of the people by well-intentioned teachers...

God know all of this of course. As you say, "He looks at the heart." Rejoice Sister! And thank God with me at least for that! He doesn't throw us way because we are imperfect or our understanding is imperfect... Praise the Lord for His mercy and grace!

That being said, we must never look to other fallen, imperfect people and judge ourselves by them. This method doesn't work now, and it won't work on Judgement Day. God has given us freedom and an "open" Bible. Let us follow, not other men or women, but it.

Finally:
Regarding your comments and the pasted commentary on I Corinthians 11:

"heathen priestesses" "only mentioned once" "not fully explained..." The modern commentator says it was only cultural... Men removing their hats today is only a cultural custom... We must not be seen as "bizarre" by the prevailing culture... Arguing from "nature" and from "Divine Command" are mutually exclusive... The word "ought" vs. "must"..., etc...

Dear Sister:

Though there are strong, logical, and Biblical answers to all of these modern assertions, I am not certain you want to know what they are. I think if you have carefully read all of my posts in this Thread, you will see that enough has been said already. You are going to have to convince me that you truly want to know more before I say anything else to you about this.

In the meantime,

Be well Sister.
Doug

Very true, Approved. Outward dogmas are very insulting to the cross and blood of Christ.

Again, this burden was not put on the Gentiles by Paul at the Jerusalem council, which proves that Paul was talking to the Corintian church about their culture in the light of heathen priestesses prophesying. If Paul meant this for all Gentile Christians, he would have mentioned it several times in his letters and definitely at the Jerusalem Council.

There can be no other explanation why Paul failed to mention this "very important doctrine" at the Jerusalem council. He did not mention it, because it it seemed GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST not to mention it.

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

We need no other proof but the Word of God and the voice of the Holy Ghost.

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I am rethinking this and I believe I have been too "nice" and we must stand strong against this because it is really false teaching couched in smooth words. It is absolutely not the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Paul would have withstood this fiercely just as he did not see fit along with the Holy Ghost to mention it at the Jerusalem Council.

The scriptures cannot be clearer. I will not fall into this deception of smooth words and man's wisdom. This teaching only appears one time in one chapter in one book to one church and when you take the NT as a whole and understand the Gospel, the liberty of Christ and what is proof to Him of our submission to Him and one another, you realize this is a slick lie from the pit.

I'm sorry, but really not. Christians should not put up with something like this. It only opens the door to more abuse of the scriptures and the true leading of the Holy Ghost and the Word of God.

And I pray that more men of God would not be timid and stand up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Sarah

it seems like people dont want to put up with a godliy practice of covering up the glory of the head ,,,,,,but in thses same churces you see the ungodly practic of unmodests dressing ,, showing of parts of the body that should not be flaunted in public like legs chests
and this done all this in favour of heathen customs

and thses same people cry legalism

it is more then slite hiporacy

the bible doesnt literal state this is just a custom of the corinianths

but it doest state that the church has no such custom of having a woman pray or prophesy uncovered ,and to custom of a man covering his head to pray , nor for a woman to have short hair ,or a man to have long hair

obviously there were brethern in the corinth fellowship that were no following this rule in the church

but as we all can see the church was doing many things that were not becoming of a humble church

but having said that one should only do this out of true convictions

and just because as the councel says in acts that we should not trouble those turning of the gentiles who are turning to christ( as i fully agree) we shold not copy there heathen way of dressing but set a godly example with covering our bodys apropratly and pray the babys will evenualy follow our example of modest covering of our bodys

other wise our churches will take on the stench of liberilism , all becasue the so called matured didnt want eflunce the liberty of a weak concence,and there for imated the heathern insted of the godly matured saints

tho i dont believe in free will as defined by the worlds starndes ,,,,,,, but,as die to live said ,,we are free to believe what we will ,,,,,and god still loves is elect sheep regardess even when i am stubern ,can i say even when we are stubern

bless you all ,,,and there is no need to get angry over this issue but agree to disagree is excetable to the lord

let us all be completly sure in our own minds with out any doubting and live by the messure of faith that has been givern to us and not by anothers faith

The last time this matter came up, I asked the LORD if this was something that He wanted me to do - wear a head covering at all times. Almost immediately I came upon an article that talked of a woman wearing a head covering to bed so that her husband could sleep. The hypocrisy became immediately apparent. Jesus Christ saves. Head coverings do not.

When this thread came up, I asked the LORD again. LORD, am I hearing you correctly? Incredibly, as I watched the wedding of Greg and Brandy, the veil began to fall away. Again, and again, it was put back in position - only to have it fall away once again. His answer was clear.

May God bless all who disagree.

Now let this be...

Awesome posts!!

Thank you all for your love of the liberty of Christ.

In Christ,
Sarah

Incredibly, as I watched the wedding of Greg and Brandy, the veil began to fall away. Again, and again, it was put back in position - only to have it fall away once again. His answer was clear.

One time I was wearing a pair of trousers, and they kept "falling away. Again, and again, it was put back in position - only to have it fall away once again."

God's answer to me was also clear -- not that I was to quit wearing trousers or don a dress, but that I had not secured my trousers properly. That could also be the proper answer to your problem.

Please understand-- I'm not saying this to make fun of you in any way; I'm simply saying that as in Proverbs 18:2, many people come to the Bible or listen to God's Voice with the mindset that they are not overly concerned with "understanding [Biblical truth], but that his [their] heart may discover itself." In other words, they come to the Truth with a load of preconcieved notions. I'm not accusing you of doing that; I'm simply challenging you to search your heart on this matter. Maybe the Lord has more truth to reveal to you on this topic.

Keep your heart open, and may God bless you as you follow Him and seek the truth!

I'll be honest with you, Approved,

We need to put aside our own preferences, our own likes, and all of our own ideas of how to come to God...and see what He has to say and then ACT on it!

Don't ask us if you're sinning...look at God's word! He means what He says. And we need to watch out for all these personal revelations and preferences, especially when they don't line up with God's word.

Just for clarification, the LORD has shown me that He would have me to wear a head covering when I pray and prophesy amongst His people. It matters not what others think about it, nor is it any of my concern whether others do, or do not, do it. It is between them and the LORD and I have full confidence that He will bring them into full obedience - that being whatever it is that He would have them to do.

As a man I wear a covering when I pray...Now, am I sinning by covering my head with a piece of cotton?

According to the Scriptures, yes.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;...Every man PRAYING (as you are) or prophesying, having [his] head covered, DISHONOURETH his head (Christ).For a man INDEED OUGHT NOT to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:" (1 Cor. 11:3,4,7)

I didn't say this. Christ (through Paul) said you are dishonoring Him by doing so.

I would like to add some thoughts.

As near as I can tell, the meaning of the whole passage rests on verse 15.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. Here again is what seems to be a mis-translation of a word.

"her hair is giver her FOR a covering." The greek word is "anti."

G473 ἀντί anti (an-tee') prep.
1. opposite, i.e. instead or because
2. opposed to
3. (rarely) in addition to

So, her hair is given to her INSTEAD of a covering. Hair is opposite, opposed to, instead or because of a covering. We would have to drop all the way down to the 3rd definition to get to "(rarely) in addition to." It seems to me to be a BIG stretch to say that the 3rd and rare definition is what Paul really meant. Just think of the word Antichrist, does it mean in addition to? No. It means against. Following the Word, I think the most logical conclusion is that hair is the covering.

And yes, I did read the article at the very beginning of this post.

QUOTE:
"You will not grudge me my duty of love, will you, in encouraging the tender in Spirit? Dear sisters who have the courage to post, even in the teeth of such raging mockery against them? No dear Brother, you must not grudge me this."

Thank-you, Doug. I have deliberately not looked at this thread for several days because I cannot stand to see the WORD mocked and by extension those of us who are sincere in our obedience. I find it heartbreaking, especially those whose insights I had valued in the past.

I will leave now and hope to not look at this thread again in the near future. Anyone who will address this post and expect a response from me will likely not get it. If you want to email me you may...

ginnyrose

October: Failure and Success
No man is worthy to succeed until he is willing to fail. No man is
morally worthy of success in religious activities until he is willing
that the honor of succeeding should go to another if God so wills.
Born After Midnight, 58.
October 28\t\t
Failure and Success: The Things That Matter
...that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be
sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with
the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory
and praise of God.
--Philippians 1:10-11
In life there will be found certain great fundamentals, like pillars
bearing up the weight of some mighty building....
The wise man will simplify his life by going to the center of it. He
will look well to the foundations and, having done that, he will not
worry about the rest.
Life as we know it in our painfully intricate civilization can be
deadly unless we learn to distinguish the things that matter from
those that do not. It is never the major things that destroy us, but
invariably the multitude of trifling things which are mistakenly
thought to be of major importance. These are so many that, unless we
get out from under them, they will crush us body and soul....
Every believer as well as every minister of Christ must decide
whether he will put his emphasis upon the majors or the minors. He
must decide whether he will stay by the sober truths which
constitute the beating heart of the Scriptures or turn his attention
to those marginal doctrines which always bring division and which,
at their best, could not help us much on our way to the Celestial
City. The Next Chapter After the Last, 11,14.
"Oh God, we are so inundated with distracting things and clamorous
voices. Deliver me today from the trifling things and help me to
spend every minute of the day on 'the things that matter.' Amen."

Important notes on the study about head covering.

1. Scriptural basis of the head covering.

2. What is the reason for head covering, is it just to respect the prevailing customs. (1Co 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:)

What was the related jewish, or roman, or greek custom at the time of Paul's writing.

3. When to wear the head covering: all the time, in the presence of public audience, when praying either in private or in public, when attending a christian assembly, only when praying or prophesying in public, whenever a christian woman has to say something during christian assembly.

In 1 Cor 14:34 women are prohibited from speaking during christian gathering do 'praying and prophesying' in 1 cor 11 represents something else.

4. Is their a prescribed style and size of the head covering.

5. Is a woman who in fact or heart is submissive to her husband, still required to wear a head covering.

6. In reference to 1Cor 11:15, is the head covering after all pertains to hair.

7. What is the Greek rendition of the texts, if by any chance some mistranslation happened, as some commentators claim.

Pardon me for adding these headaches.

I prayed up a storm and sang melodies in my heart to the Lord all winter long and not once did He ever convict me of my scarf, my hood or the ceiling or the roof or any other covering that I might have been under. To this day I still don't.

So what is your point? I hope your point is not that the Scriptures are wrong, simply because "you didn't feel convicted"...

I am sorry Neil if I have given an impression of me writing it. It's from Tozer daily Devotional - an excerpt from Tozer's article.