Some Quotations On The Biblical View Of Headcovering

"One final thought: there is a difference between following a specific, identified command of the Lord [like head coverings] and returning to the law."

Really, only the Lord knows the heart on this matter. We cannot even know our heart apart from God revealing it over the course of our lives. So how can we judge another’s true motive for their traditional habits – or how God is working in that person’s lives?

This same principle works for any outward church tradition. Consider the practice of ecclesial robes. That too has been condemned as being legalist/popish. It may be so. But it may also be a way of holding the place of preaching the word in high esteem. There are many godly, Spirit led, grace-centered clergy who wear gowns every Sunday… and even light candles…

Being one who has visited and served in various church affiliations, I have come to learn the value of accepting their own traditions as having meaning to those people – even if they may not have relevance to me. Also, traditions can serve as powerful visual aids for biblical truths (as the head covering). And even if the people have forgotten their meaning, those truths can be brought back to light through preaching. I have found it a great way to re-root the Word of God in the historic tradition of that church congregation and move God’s promises forward into the contemporary setting.

“Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Phil. 2:4

Diane

@ Greg-

Do you think that much of the lack of agreement on this issue may be because in Paul's culture the head covering was seen as a sign of submission (he actually said that very thing) but in or culture (at least the one I live in) head coverings are not at all understood or seen as a sign of submission?

In essence the issue may simply be one of submission not necessarily the symbol of it. If head coverings are seen to represent that submission in an area then it means something to those people. However, if head coverings are seen as nothing more that a form of hat then the symbolism is lost on that group. Perhaps another symbol might play that role in their culture and could be used instead.

Just a few thoughts but I wonder if we are possibly looking at the specific symbol in Paul's world and at times we may, or may not, be able to use the exact same emblem in ours.

Solomon,

I think you hit it square on the head (excuse the pun). Best post I have read on this subject, bar none.

Head covering means nothing in our culture. However, it means Roman Catholic Church to many of us.

Pilgrim

I agree, it would be great to have a discussion about this issue. But with certain attitudes, it makes it very difficult to have a mature discussion on certain topics. People who want to enter in, let us do it for the glory of God, because we want to know Him and make His way known in every way, with great love and mercy. If there are people who do not want to enter in, they have a choice not to, and no need to leave any comment that does not edify the brethren and help encourage them to keep seeking.

S.I. was the one that God used to help my heart to desire and seek to understand about head coverings. I read a lot of head covering discussions in the past and it helped me a great deal. So remember, though some may not see it important, there are others who do not join the forum, but are reading and want to learn. There's nothing wrong with talking about topics that's been talked about before, because people are in different walks.

Thanks Greg for those past head covering articles that you've posted. God used it to help me!

Large Chinese groups of Christians do not wear headcoverings. Why? It is not part of their culture.

Who does? Chinese groups connected to the Brethren and Quaker movement.

Large groups of Africans and Indonesians and Filipinos along with many other races do not wear headcoverings because it was never an issue or customary part of their culture.

This is really quite silly. I thought we had agreed to disagree and pray for one another. But then comes more threads. For what purpose when you know that there is at least 50-50 consensus on SI?

Lord help us all.

Pilgrim

Solomon,

I posted my experience with this topic of head coverings on the other thread. Not sure what more there is to be said for me personally but wanted to say that I thought your post was really great Solomon. I do think this goes way beyond a cloth covering that a person wears. It is about submission and I think there are many ways a wife can demonstrate that to her husband within their own family.

Its interesting some of the traditions and teachings that God uses in the lives of differing believers. What an awesome GOD we all serve that HE so carefully leads each of us in HIS good and perfect timing to know HIS will and plan for us.

God Bless
mary

"So remember, though some may not see it important, there are others who do not join the forum, but are reading and want to learn."

Now that's a big statement. We get so preoccupied with "our" view that we forget how many people are reading who do not comment. These may be lost, searching, wanting to come back, or just trying to learn.

We've got to be careful how we discuss these things.

Personally, I don't believe head coverings to be a big deal. I think intent is more important than physical practice.

I didn't really like the tone set in the other threads and know how I can get as well so I stayed out of it.

If the heart isn't right it doesn't matter what we do to the outside of this bag of bones. Conversely, I believe a right heart is going to look like just about anything.

"In essence the issue may simply be one of submission not necessarily the symbol of it. If head coverings are seen to represent that submission in an area then it means something to those people. However, if head coverings are seen as nothing more that a form of hat then the symbolism is lost on that group. Perhaps another symbol might play that role in their culture and could be used instead."

WOW! Talk about bringing peace to a subject. I am speechless, I agree. Praise God for this truth.

Can we just please be at peace with one another? Please?

Pilgrim

Greetings Myfirstlove:
you wrote:Thanks Greg for those past head covering articles that you've posted. God used it to help me!

___________

Its wonderful GOD used these articles to help you. He has done the same for me just in a differing way. IT was through reading these articles, searching the Scripture with my husband and much prayer and counsel that I finally have peace that the LORD does not require me to wear the head covering. SO I agree that the discussions are of benefit and since we all love the LORD equally I think talking about it is fine. As Greg mentioned its not about being right its about allowing one another the liberty to walk in what the LORD is showing us.

God bless you sis
mary

Adding my stop to Krispy's.

S T O P !!!

SScott7

Greetings :)

Please don't misunderstand my post. I said my husband and I searched the Bible and prayed along time concerning this matter. This was not a decision on my part based off of feelings, it was based purely and simply off of the leading of the LORD and my willingness to submit myself to my husband on the matter. I am sure you and your wife did the same and I think that is great. When I mentioned my experience I was speaking about my issue with the way some have treated me concerning my not wearing the head covering as if some how I am less of a christian. That kind of stings a little coming from other believers but its all good cause I know that I am walking with the LORD and following HIS leading on this.

I do think talking about it is fine and have no issue at all just wonder why this seems to be the only thing you want to discuss?? what about JESUS? Our daily walk with HIM touches every aspect of our life not just this one topic right??

For me, I have been learning a lot about what it means to walk by faith, to trust HIM completely and to live seeking to please HIM. I am learning that its not by my own works though(something I personally struggled with) but that its all about HIM.

Of course you are free to post your articles as the LORD leads you. I know with out a doubt that GOD will use these thing to touch whom HE chooses how HE chooses...

God bless you
mary

@ sscott7

Hey Scott,

I understand and appreciate your passion. However, for a moment let's try to defuse the emotion from the topic.

Here is the thought on the "cultural" idea. What if in my neighborhood women wear head coverings as a sign to show they are in rebellion to their husbands and have now embraced extreme feminism, and often bisexuality, now having homosexual partners along with their husbands.

In this example the "sign of submission" is no longer a sign of submission to her husband at all. It is a sign of total rebellion. The issue is SUBMISSION not the emblem used.

Paul only used the head covering emblem in the Corinth letter, no others.

I think if you will do some deeper cultural research from that century you will find that the head covering was not a universally recognized sign of submission even in Paul's day for many of the cultures of the time. Paul's point is that the wives would be submissive to their husbands and that the husbands would love their wives and give themselves up for them even as Christ did the Church.

What if a lady wears the head covering but is in rebellion to her husband on every front in the home, family, and community? Does she meet God's command of submission? Of course not... even though she is wearing a head covering.

What if a lady learns in meekness, submits to and honors her husband as Christ commanded even though she is not wearing a head covering. Is she condemned? Of course not. She is doing right in God's eyes by her heart, actions, and attitudes. However, the first lady is meeting an outward symbol for that Corinthian culture but in total sin as she is in rebellion in her heart and actions.. regardless of what she wears on her head.

I hope this helps to more clearly explain what many here are trying to express. Again, I commend you for your commitment to the Word. However, if you do some good historical research you will find there is more depth of understanding here that is currently had.

Paul wrote to a specific people in a specific place at a specific time in a specific culture in the Corinthian letter. It wasn't written to 2012 America. We can not read it as such. We must extract the core meaning that the Holy Spirit intended them to understand and then apply that to our lives in the world we live in today.

Blessings Brother.

You're right, Sean. I'm sorry. Please continue.

Maybe that STOP was for me. :-)

God bless,
Pilgrim

Sean

Greetings :)

Its a fair question you ask and I will do my best to answer(although my hubby could do better I am sure) I have to go cook dinner now but will do my best to return and respond soon. Did not want you to think I am avoiding your question :)

God Bless
mary

I think we need to ask Greg. What motive is behind this post along with his Moravian study. Sounds to me that the Moravian women wore head coverings. We must see Gregs heart for revival. What say Greg? Are we grasping for straws of revival in desperation for wanting God to move. He will, but in His timing. I pray this is edifing and not a faction to destruction, even though there must be factions to approve those in the will of God in the Body of Christ His Church.

In Christ: Phillip

What is so difficult about the passage? It is as simple as stop at red and go at green. The problem is not with understanding but simply with trusting the bible as God's word and obeying it.

1 Corinthians 11 KJV
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. NKJV
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I think we need to ask Greg. What motive is behind this post along with his Moravian study. Sounds to me that the Moravian women wore head coverings. We must see Gregs heart for revival. What say Greg? Are we grasping for straws of revival in desperation for wanting God to move. He will, but in His timing. I pray this is edifing and not a faction to destruction, even though there must be factions to approve those in the will of God in the Body of Christ His Church.

I am not willing to argue with anyone, nor I am I trying to Answer for Greg. I did not get involved in any of these covering related thread. I just wanted to post my opinion on the Cultural thoughts.

Head covering command from Paul CANNOT be ignored as a command that is Culturally motivated. This is because Paul does not say that Head should be covered as a symbol to the people. If it is to the people then the symbol varies based on culture followed by people. But here it is a Symbol to Angels, who are the same irrespective of Culture and time.

Secondly if we ignore a command considering that it is specific for a culture then we can also ignore the part where 'Women submission to men' as a cultural thing. How?
Because in those days women did not work and they played no role in Economy. Only men were known by their trade like Simon the tanner etc. But in this culture women have their own trade (business or work). Hence they are no longer dependent on men. So why should they submit to Husband when they earn more than Husband? I am just giving it as an example to prove that if we start ignoring things out of scripture in the name of Culture then we can keep doing it endlessly.

Having said all these things, let me tell you my point here. We are in New Covenant where we live by Spirit and not by Letter. Which means we keep the Spirit of every law and not the letter of the law. So the spirit of Head covering is submission. If a women feels that she is keeping the spirit of this command then let us not force her on the letter. But if she feels that this is a command given to every women by God then let her fulfill it completely. In both cases the importance should be given to the spirit of submission.

My wife covers her head in meetings and she did her Education in US, working and living in US, so culture is not an issue here. She feels it is a command that God gave her and she wants to fully keep it.

Hey Scott (Sean?)

Thanks for the reply. You obviously have spent time on this issue and it is apparent that it is important to you.

I thought about going through a point by point thing.. but I think I will just leave it at this. Just a couple simple questions and answers-

1. Q-What was the point of wearing the head covering? In essence, why did Paul give that portion about it.

A- I think we can all agree that the point was for the Godly wife to show submission to her husband.

2. Q -What if the world I live in does not accept a head covering as a sign of submission? Actually, what good does it do for a person to wear a sign of submission if no one can read the sign or knows what it means.

A- I can try to tell all of the people in a culture they they are all wrong and to line up with my view or I can find what does show submission in my world and teach the females to show submission in a way that others will recognize it. I also teach the men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

That's about it for me really.

Scott/Sean (wasn't sure which you went by) I appreciate your heart on the matter. I think it is also certain that we both agree that there is a great need for ladies to show respect and submission to their husbands as well as great need for husbands to show love, honor, and sacrifice for their wives. If our country ever needed these examples it is now. I feel sure we can agree on those ideas.

I just think we will have to agree to slightly disagree on this topic.
However, I greatly respect your willingness to stand on principle and your beliefs whether our beliefs end up exactly eye to eye on this or not. I hope you can do the same for me.

I will also say this. I recently was the speaker at a series of community services. There were some Anabaptist churches there with all the ladies in head coverings, several Charismatic groups there, as well as some Lutheran fellowships. We had the most wonderful services together. If I am preaching in an area that the Anabaptist groups are strong then my wife has no problem wearing a head covering so as not cause an offense to them. However, when not with those folk and I am ministering to different types of fellowships she is the most wonderfully submissive and loving wife.. and all without a head covering. However, the evidences she gives of her submission are clear and loving for all to see and understand.

That to say this- many blessings to you. We will not always arrive at the same exact theological conclusions on every minute matter. I don't really care to try. I used to try to get everyone to agree with all my positions... then I guess I grew up. If we have the core faith of born again children of God then I am on your side and consider you a brother that I would defend in a moment. When I get into heated discussions on the board here it is ALWAYS because I am defending someone from being attacked by other Christians. I never want to be seen as one who divides His body... but rather one who unites.

Blessings brother. I have enjoyed reading your input and look forward to seeing more in the future.

I wrote this to Sean yesterday on His blog and wanted to post it here as well, some of you seem to forget that people are searching in good faith for the answer to this very question.

One of my friends on Facebook posted an article on a local pastor moving a tattoo parlor (yes, I know this is bizarre how it lead into this subject, thanks for your patience) into his ‘church’ and I brought up Leviticus 19:28 which pretty much ended up in the “hey man this is the New Testament times, yada, yada”. Then he made the comment “well what about ornaments, man?” To which I have some light on and of course he threw in the head covering issue.

Regarding the ornaments issue I explained to him what I believe the Lord taught me on the subject. I answered him as honestly as I could regarding the head coverings issue with those 3 words “I don’t know”, and so I took it to the Lord to explain it to me and have done a bunch of research as well.

One thing that I have noticed is the visceral (that’s really not a strong enough word) response to the issue. While I admittedly don’t know everything I do know one thing, you can usually gauge the importance of an spiritual issue by the amount of controversy that it generates. If it’s no big deal than why all the hubbub? Judging by the reactions of most (and I think that the term most is appropriate) I assume that this really stirs up the demonic realm.

To my own shame I honestly couldn't give the guy (above) an answer and it really bothered me (this was in mid-December) so I prayed about it, and did some research on it as well. After all of this is said and done, I still haven't seen a single person present a counter opinion from the Word. It basically comes down to it means what it says, and says what it means.

Anytime I personally get into 'Did God really say?' it brings up a red flag in my spirit, immediately (see Genesis 3). In my opinion when we get into 'well that's cultural' then the bible is not written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and we're free to pick and choose what we believe and what we don't, it's either 100% inspired or it's not at all. That scripture was just as inspired as 'In the beginning was the Word'.

No one has suggested that if you aren't covering your head that you need to stop what you are doing, run to the store and buy a pallet load of head coverings. No one has suggested that if you aren't covering your head you are not saved. Some folks have light on the issue, some don't, no harm no foul (and I'm not in saying this from a position of inferiority, hear my heart).

If you don't want to cover your head then don't but at the same time don't present this as being a cultural argument.

One last thing that I wanted to point out, look at this quote from an article on Charisma news:

“We prayed fervently for guidance during our search for a new senior pastor and this led us to ask Pastor Paula to serve as our new senior pastor. We were searching for someone who could understand the history of our ministry, someone who had a close relationship with our members and our staff and someone who knew the heart of our senior founder,” the board wrote in a statement. “We earnestly know that the Lord led us to select Pastor Paula. We know she will honor the vision and the legacy on which our church is built.”

http://www.charismanews.com/us/32580-amid-protests-paula-white-named-senior-pastor-of-zachery-tims-church

My point is simply this: What god did these people (the elders) hear from?

It surely couldn't be the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob because what they 'heard' is directly contradicted by 1 Timothy 2:12-13:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

This is an extreme example of people being led by 'hearing things' and not wise enough to compare what they are hearing with what is written in the Word.

I have a couple of questions if I may ask them.

1. Why does Paul say in verse 15 that a woman hair is her covering?

2. why does Paul end this passage by saying in verse 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

3. Is this covering required for all times to be worn or just when a woman is at church praying?

Just trying to sort through some of this.

thanks
rdg

Greetings Sean,

I wanted to come back and respond sooner but have felt the Lord holding me back until now. When I posted before I had every intention of writing something entirely different then what I am sharing now, but must be faithful to what the Lord JESUS is showing me. I shared with my husband about this topic and how I have spent much of the day in this discussion, after doing so I see that I have allowed self to get caught up in another debate that I should have remained out of. Truth is no matter what I share those who view this topic differently will walk in what they are seeing(and that is how it should be) and I need to be content to walk in what the Lord has shown me and not get caught up in debates, fear, or worry. I need to truly know what it means to live fully in Jesus moment by moment daily, and trust that HE will take care of the rest in HIS timing. Just like all of you I to want to die to self and live only unto my LORD but today I allowed self to reign and I jumped in where I had no business being... I have repented for my part in this and ask the Lord to forgive me. If my words caused anyone to stumble or to sin then I ask you to forgive me also.

God Bless you all
mary

I feel the same way as MaryJane, Sean. Forgive me for getting caught up in debate with you and causing you or your wife any pain.

I welcome you and Lisa and look forward to receiving the portion of Jesus that you share.

Pilgrim

Hi all,
I'm very happy to find this thread here because I became convinced some years ago that women are to cover our heads in church but have found that most Christians reject the idea or don't even want to think about it. I've even been keeping a blog on it: http://gloryhidden.blogspot.com/ under the name "Faith" where I covered quite a bit of research, although I've pretty much run out of new material so it's just been sitting there for some time.

I'm sorry if I'm coming in at the wrong place here, it's hard to tell how these threads work. I think I'm replying to Solomon though, right? And Solomon keeps saying that the head covering is a symbol of submission.

I don't read it that way. Paul has given plenty of other teaching on maintaining a submissive spirit and I don't think that's the meaning of the head covering. Paul is actually making a number of arguments but the main one I see is that the man's head is to be uncovered in worship because he represents the glory of Christ, whereas the woman's head is to be covered because hers is the glory of man (and her own glory in her hair) which is not to be allowed to compete with Christ's glory (verse 7).

I think it's telling that we do require men to uncover their heads in church, which was originally made a requirement because of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and since in this passage that requirement is parallel to the requirement for women to cover it seems to follow from the structure of the argument that women should cover as men should not. That is, if on the basis of this passage we require men to uncover then we should likewise require women to cover.

I don't think it's about submission as such partly because if you require an outward symbol of an inward state you easily get into legalistic anxieties about whether it REALLY reflects your inward state or not, and I don't see this in Paul's teaching here. I think it's best understood as a simple act of obedience based on God's creation order and try to avoid loading it with legalistic meaning.

I notice that Sean has answered the question about why hair isn't to be regarded as the covering and answered it well, but I'd just add that in Paul's day and indeed down the centuries since then until the 20th century in the west, women ALWAYS wore their hair long, so that it would make no sense for Paul to feel a need to exhort them to wear it long. Paul was referring to this "natural" fact of women having long hair, and using it as an argument for women to cover our heads. Again this is a parallel argument with the requirement that men NOT cover their heads -- they NATURALLY keep their hair shorter (and many go bald too for that matter) and that is a reason for them NOT to wear something ELSE over their heads -- Paul is saying nature TEACHES us these things by uncovering the male head and covering the female.

Also, those cultures that DO cover the head consider it important to cover the hair as well, the Muslims for instance, and the orthodox Jews. Not that we are to follow their example but it says something about how hair is not considered to be a covering in itself but is to be covered.

I also think it's clear that the passage refers to all women, not just wives. All women are the glory of man and all men are the glory of Christ, married or not.

CJeanne

Thanks Sean. I just want to encourage others in the Lord and not be a stumblingblock to anyone. I'm sure you feel the same way.

We know HIM Who is far above rubies. His work in us is the best kind of work. The kind of work that no man could ever do on his own. His work causes no mistakes, no regrets, is not fleeting and creates no unrealistic expectations.

The Life of GOD in Christ Jesus ... the perfect work of Christ in us!

There is such peace, hope, rest and love in the work of GOD in us and He wants us to express and reflect His nature and character.

Looking forward to some good discussions. We have so many good things in Christ to share. He truly has given us so much.

Pilgrim

CJeanne writes

Quote

Paul is actually making a number of arguments but the main one I see is that the man's head is to be uncovered in worship because he represents the glory of Christ, whereas the woman's head is to be covered because hers is the glory of man (and her own glory in her hair) which is not to be allowed to compete with Christ's glory (verse 7).

At last we get to the crux of the teaching, - the glory of Christ in the churches, signified and shown by the uncovered, unveiled man, the new man. Thank you CJeanne for your contribution and welcome to SI.

Since for us, Christ has removed the veil, we can all come directly into God's presence.

In the local church, and this teaching in 1 Corinthians is specifically for the church, the uncovered man represents the glory of Christ, and the covered woman represents the glory of the man.

The man in the church speaks of Christ, whereas the woman in the church speaks of the Bride. God and His angels look on us, His church, and see glory in the church.

David

Thank you all for letting this conversation move forward. Sean and Pilgrim you both have been very Christlike and gracious in your back and forth, and I just wanted to mention that you have both been great examples although your positions differ.

Much love!

Thank you for the welcome, DavidC. I'm not sure about everything you said but we do agree that the glory of Christ is the essential point to this scripture.

This is a huge forum site so just reading through a thread is demanding, and I'm unable to find the thread or threads on this subject that have apparently gone before. Could someone point me to them?

It took me a while just to get through this thread and I really only skimmed it. Overall I agree the most with Sean Scott.

Someone on this thread pointed out that the fact that this topic is so controversial in itself says that it is an important topic, something the demonic realms consider important enough to keep stirred up, and I have to agree with this point. But the simple fact that it IS scripture ought to be enough in itself to tell us it's important. Beyond that, the fact that all the churches obeyed it with a literal covering of the woman's head up until the 20th century ought also to tell us it's important.

I do agree that we must not make a contentious issue of it with those who don't cover and are clear in their conscience about that, but at the same time there is reason to continue to discuss this and reason to think it important enough to try to persuade others, not force the issue, but persuade.

As Watchman Nee says, "We must not frustrate God's government with God's grace" (I hope I could find that quote if someone wants me to). This is a matter of God's government which is a different level from the grace we are all under. I think it is clarifying to call it a matter of God's creation ordinance, something instituted at creation that is binding on all --not just the Church, therefore, although arguing it for the world isn't something I'd want to undertake. Culture sometimes reflects God's order and sometimes rejects it, so culture can't be our standard and Paul didn't make it the standard -- he placed the authority for the head covering on the apostolic authority of the Church, an entirely new standard in the world. (And it was on that authority that it became the cultural practice in the west for women to be covered at all times, rightly or wrongly.)

So the reason to try to persuade others about this is that if this is God's creation ordinance, and if the angels would be offended to see us disrespecting that ordinance, if they look into our assemblies and wonder why the glory of Christ is allowed to be overshadowed by the glory of man, then the churches are out of order and probably forfeiting some of God's blessings and that IS something that is important, especially in this day when we are longing for revival and watching the world go to Hell in a handbasket around us. Judgment begins at the house of God and this is just one of many things we should be trying to get in order in our house to fit us for revival, but I believe it IS one of them.

Since I've been blogging on this for a few years I do have opinions on all facets of the issue but I know I should try to keep it to a minimum here, but I do want to add that I don't think hats are what we should be wearing in church. Hats too easily become a fashion issue and sometimes interfere with the line of vision of people sitting behind as well. The Greek word "katakalupto" which Paul uses to describe the head covering he is advocating has the connotation of something "downfalling" -- a "downfalling covering." That's in the prefix "kata." To my mind this means a scarf is the most appropriate covering. It's not attractive in itself but that is also a good thing for the sake of modesty. If to meet the requirement of this scripture women need only pull a scarf over our heads when we enter the assembly it seems to me to be a very simple matter that we need to be obeying.

Hello martyr / Blaine Scogin:
I certainly agree that we need to carefully study the passage and I have done so. I took months to grapple with it, praying over it and consulting commentaries galore and I believe the Lord led me to my conclusions.

Whether I did it "inductively" or not I don't know, but I do believe that on a thread like this you shouldn't just refer us to other sources but spell out your argument right here -- otherwise the thread just gets stopped in its tracks.

My answer at this point is that I studied this passage VERY carefully and you will see that is so if you look at my blog about it, especially my research posts: http://gloryhidden.blogspot.com/

I make use of particular quotations to support a particular point I am making, which is not the same thing as depending on them to make my case. I STRUGGLED with this scripture because when I first encountered it I found it extremely confusing and I had no clear opinion about it at all.

I had to work hard to come to the conclusions I did, so I'm hardly depending on quotations to support some preconceived position of my own.

I do wish you had written something substantive about this issue that could be addressed.

hey

interesting seems like there are many opinions on this topic even among those who follow the need to wear a veil covering. I have been reading some things and also found it interesting that some believe it must be worn all the time while others do not. Some believe it must be a veil that covers the whole top of the head while others believe a small cloth is enough. Most I have read do believe it has to do with submission and showing the husbands authority over his wife and her submitting to that.

Here is some of what is running through my mind on this. I wonder how does one insure that they do not get caught up in the externals. I mean its not like wearing this veil would make me more acceptable to God? Seriously can I do anything that makes me acceptable to God anyway? If I start wearing this veil because someone on this forum told me to and not because God convicted me to and showed me in His Word that I needed to then is it really pleasing to Him?

I would like to ask, if this is not a salvation issue then why do you feel so strongly about having to persuade others on the mater? Just trying to sift through this since this topic has been coming up so much lately.

rdg

Edited: As Greg requested I am not going to remove what I wrote about above but am adding that I withdraw my questions. I read over some of the blogs links shared and after some prayer I really think God has other things He is leading me in right now. I want to be faithful to that first and most of all.
rdg

Thank you for your comment, Sean, and the link to the other thread and the Nee quotations. I do think the quotation I gave I found pretty much verbatim somewhere, however, so I will have to go back and find it.

Hi RDG:
First, there are many things in scripture that aren't salvation issues. The thief on the cross was saved without knowing anything other than that Jesus was the Messiah.

This isn't a salvation issue, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant, and as I say earlier I think it has to do with the churches being blessed by God or not, perhaps even with revival or not. I also think some churches fudge the scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage, allowing remarriage where the Lord doesn't, but I don't think people forfeit their salvation by getting this wrong.

I don't think it's about individual women as much as about the church authorities. While once your conscience is engaged you must obey and cover your head, I don't think this is the woman's personal responsibility, I think it is the responsibility of the church government. They require men not to cover their heads in the assembly and should require women to cover.

Whether it applies outside the assembly or not I haven't fully decided for myself (added later: Actually, if it applied outside the assembly then men's being required to uncover would also apply outside and that's obviously not the case. They may wear hats outside, therefore women do not need to cover outside. But I would like to know how it became such an ironclad practice down the centuries that women WERE to be covered on all occasions). But I'm certain it applies during the assembly, any time both sexes are gathered together for worship and prayer at least, so I leave it at that for now.

There is nothing in the passage itself about submission, of wives to husbands, or submission at all, I believe this is imposed on the passage simply because Paul has written about it elsewhere. But the passage itself is specifically about the order of Creation, man by God and woman from man. Submission is implied from this but it's not the point of the passage. Again, I think if we try to make an external symbol stand for an internal state that's where we get into problems with legalism, people saying "oh she covers but she sure isn't submissive" and then it starts calling the whole covering thing into question. But if it's simply about a creation ordinance that can be simply obeyed with a cloth over the head we avoid all those secondary problems that I don't think are in the passage anyway.

About the size of the covering, there are two sources I take for the standard, one is the pictures of the women praying in the catacombs with a big piece of cloth pulled up over their heads; and the other is Tertullian's writing on the subject in which he objects to the small cloths most of the churches have been using, except for the Corinthian church which he commends. I do think a fairly good-sized cloth is implied by the Greek word "katakalupto" in the first place, but apparently the flesh always has to make less of the requirement than God does.

In deciding these things we have first to honestly consider what the Bible is saying, and then I think other resources like Tertullian's writings and the catacomb pictures can help show us what the early church thought. Tertullian's writing makes it clear that ALL the churches were requiring SOMETHING on the women's heads, even if not large enough according to Tertullian. That in itself ought to tell us the early church understood Paul to be requiring a cloth covering.

martyr,
Can you link to that thread you are recommending? I still don't know my way around this forum.

I went looking for that thread and could not find it. I looked through 21 old pages under Scripture and Doctrine and if it's there I missed it. I did find a couple other threads on this topic, however, which I have bookmarked for later.

Martyr / Blaine: Please link to the thread you are referring to.

Thanks.

Here are several threads you can start with where Head Covering has been "covered".

Women's Headcovering
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=14218&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=1

No Custom? Or No Argument?
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=9669&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go

Headcovering Question
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=4351&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go

Do The Bibles Statements on Head Covering Apply Today?
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11698&forum=36#91119

myFirstLove, you are on this page. https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=14218&forum=36&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=1

CJeanne, It was a a delight to my soul to hear the wisdom God gave you. Thanks for sharing and please keep sharing; I've gained more wisdom on head covering. I will try to find the time to read your blog.

I want to also thank everybody here for a great discussion and loving spirit, and especially to those who used much of the word to bring more light and understanding to this topic.

It's been a long while since I've been back on the forum AND reading the many discussions and articles; very refreshing. This will be my last comment though; I just don't have the time to engage in forums; I have four kids. I'm hardly on the net, so this has been a lot for me and has consume a lot of my time that I need for my kids. But I wanted to leave you all with a blessing:

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God (2 Peter 1:2-9). That is a promise when we come to know Him! God is so good and wonderful. His ways so profound and awesome; foolish to the carnal mind, but glorious to those with child like faith! Come, to know Him, no matter the cost.. He is worthy!

May God bless you with His rich everlasting awesome love!

Much love for the brethren,
Lisa

What an idol it can become, what a yardstick by which all other Christians are measured, all other churches judged! Yet after we left the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, I continued wearing the same one, for it had never been a burden.

But one Sunday a young visiting woman sat in front of me with a beautiful long veil of hair upon her shoulders. I looked at the glory that God had given her with the appreciation I have for a beautiful sunset or the flowing mane of a horse. I looked past her at the other women with their hair hidden under white scarves. The contrast was startling. Could it be possible that the young woman was the only one wearing the actual, God-given veil? Were the others hiding their true veil and replacing it with a fabric substitute? An artificial, fabric “wig”?

In Whether it be of God I wrote that the long hair could be construed to be the covering, but I casually dismissed the thought by saying women usually don’t wear long hair. I also blithely dismissed the cultural issue. Now I concentrated again on that passage, not because I wanted to discard the covering, but because I wanted to know whether other Christian women are disobedient or not.

I knew of the early church writings, but those men advised covering the face, the most vocal saying the veil should be waist or knee-length (like the Islamic burhka). He said all decent women of his day veiled in the street to hide beauty and avoid drawing attention. Wearing a veil was definitely a cultural issue when Paul wrote, and almost two hundred years later, when Tertullian wrote. So historical practice is not the solution to discovering Biblical meaning. I knew various other men in history felt women should veil in church, but opinion never carries the weight of the plain Word of God.

I contacted Jay P. Green, a lifelong Greek scholar whose translation of the Bible, The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (from the same manuscripts which produced the King James Bible) is recognized nationwide. Here’s his reply:

“The way that I read the Greek, and understand the message, is that woman's hair is sufficient cover in the assembly. This I conclude because the contrast is being shorn, and not being shorn. To my knowledge there is no requirement that a woman wear a fabric hat at any time, much less at all times.”

I knew this passage deals with an unchanging principle of headship. Women must and men must not cover their heads “with something hanging down” (the literal Greek word meaning) as a sign for the angels’ sake. I had known for years that the original Greek also says a woman’s long hair is given to her “anti” instead of a cloth veil, cloak, or mantle. This word always means exchange, replacement, or substitution when two things are compared, such as long hair and veil. But verses 5 and 6 had stumbled me because I assumed shorn or shaven meant “cut off” in which case the long hair as covering doesn’t make sense. I failed to see that shorn or shaven are just that—shaved with a razor or shorn like a sheep. With that so, the passage could mean that if a woman has short hair, she should just go all the way and shave it off, for it does no good as a veil anyway, and she is usurping the man’s position of authority with her bold, mannish haircut. Even nature tends to make us cringe at a long-haired man and a woman with a man’s haircut. I once had my hair cut very short, and felt a burning shame. I had never heard of a head covering, so this feeling was the instinct of nature. But as a Christian, I prayed for 20 years with long hair as my only covering and never felt any shame.

God desires distinction between men and women, thus close-cropped hair for men, and the flowing veil of hair for women. (And nowhere in Scripture is uncovered hair immodest.) Even when worn in a bun, her hair is still recognizable as long.

Is that distinction better served with a veil of hair—or skullcaps that give a manlike silhouette and eventually cause bald spots and hair loss, reducing a woman’s glory to thin, short wisps?

The last verse says anyone who wants to be contentious should know that the churches have no such custom. A word study reveals that “such” means “such,” not “other.” It seems Paul knew that some might contentiously insist on the cultural practice of veiling with fabric, but he taught that the church has no such custom or requirement.

Matthew Henry agrees. He says of fabric veiling, “[They would be] odd...if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred.”

My husband and I personally believe a woman should cover her head with a cloth veil if culture or conscience demand it, but that the church itself has never had such a custom and considers the long hair sufficient as a veil for prayer and prophesying. (Adam Clarke also takes this view).

But how long is long? The Greek word is not “uncut.” Someone said that a length considered long on a man can also be considered long on a woman. Perhaps. I personally feel the longer, the better. Why mar God’s design and intended glory?

Don't worry, Jim, I know the truth, and see the beauty and humility on Cor.11. I use to fight against this topic too; I'm so familiar with all the excuses and the lies because I've said them before. Through my experience, it has helped me to give much grace to others, knowing I use to be one hard against covering too. But now I have bend my knees and have allowed our Father to break and soften my heart; and in humility, with a open heart, He made it so clear and helped me die. And PTL, I see His glory in His order; Its not legalism, its freedom. He freed me from the ways of the world/feminism and made me love His order and command. And I thank God that I have a husband who stirs me on and encourages me to die to self and embrace true womanhood and His righteous order.
God bless you and your family!

Love,
Lisa

This is my last post, for sure..I got to go.

Thanks, Blaine, for the info on how to find the thread. I found it. And thanks to Pilgrim for the links to more threads. I see I have my work cut out for me.

Thank you Lisa for your kind words. Must say there is a sweet spirit here in spite of the difficulties of this passage and some pretty high feelings that follow it.

I'd love to get right into the issues but unfortunately at the moment I have other obligations. Hope I can get back to this later tonight or tomorrow.

At the moment I just feel like saying that Jay Green is certainly a worthy interpreter but there are many worthy interpreters on both sides of this question. Some of my most favorite preachers are against me on this. But there ARE answers to their arguments -- lots of good answers.

Back later.

Well, Murrcolr, I do want to try to answer some of your post now. Maybe not a great idea since I don't really have the time to do it justice but maybe I can come back to it later also.

It's too bad if the covering does become an idol in some churches and is made into a harsh judgment against others, but that can be said of just about any of the differences in our unfortunately many denominations. Since I have never been in a church where the women covered their heads my experience has been quite the opposite. The judgmentalness is strongly against those who believe women should cover their heads. I experienced a mild sort of mockery and otherwise rejecting silence from some of the women in the congregation after I'd first approached my pastor with what I was concluding about the covering. I've heard that in some churches a couple may be asked to leave if they believe in covering.

As for the girl's beautiful hair, I believe the passage implies that it's the very glory of women's hair that is one of the reasons to cover. The glory that is to be displayed in the assembly is the glory of Christ of the male head, but the glory of man which is the head of the woman, including her own glory of her hair, must be covered to allow that display.

From what I've read of the early church fathers on this subject the majority of them do NOT favor complete burka-type covering and I don't know who you are referring to. However, the churches apparently did not agree with that idea and stuck to simply wearing something on the head. And from what I gather from Tertullian, they all wore something, although he thought too many of them were not covering their heads completely enough.

Wearing a veil was NOT a cultural issue in Paul's day and that is one of the biggest confusions on this subject. ONLY the Jewish women covered their heads and they did so all the time. The Greek women sometimes covered and sometimes didn't, same with the Roman women. And often the men covered -- usually for the worship of their pagan deities, but Paul clearly says men are not to be covered in the assembly. In other words, the cultures were all over the place on this issue and you really could not make a standard out of them even if you wanted to. What Paul taught did not reflect ANY of the cultures in the Corinthian church.

You say that it was never a general practice in the churches, but in fact it was. Historically ALL the churches in the west required a head covering in the assembly down to the 20th century. They even went too far and required covering at all times, which can be seen in paintings and period movies. The covering in the assembly, however, was universal and this fact does demonstrate that that is how all the churches understood Paul. Not just the Roman church but the Waldensians and all the other independent congregations understood it that way. My point in quoting Tertullian was to demonstrate that all the churches he mentioned did require women to cover their heads, showing, again, that that is how the early church understood Paul. Tertullian was merely objecting that some of them didn't cover fully enough, but they all DID cover with a cloth. That they ALL understood Paul to mean this has to count for a lot I would think.

The rest of your post will take me more time than I have right now so I'll come back to it later.

In our Lord,
CJ

If Paul had written an epistle to the contemporary Western church he’d be telling women to cover their knees and bosoms because their bodies belonged – not to the world, but to their husbands. That law would be relevant for sure! But that would NOT have been relevant in the first century. Imagine Paul telling them to coverup their knees. They would have thought he was loopy. However, the head covering exhortation would have made sense - without a long explanation which the 21 century church now has difficulty grasping.

Actually, a knee-covering exhortation would not be necessary in many cultures even today.

Frankly, I think our Western churches should have a supply of knee coverings and scarfs on hand in the foyer ..... seriously! (But my church would have no need for that)

Here's a question: Without a knee-covering law explicitly stated in the Bible, what law in scripture dictates how we cover ourselves ... behave.... talk.... think... etc in our contemporary society?

There is one succinct all-inclusive-law! And it's blatantly clear in scripture. You know it, don't you!

Ohh, and that law would also work well to keep knee-coverings from becoming an idolatrous fashion statement (or religious icon) .... and yet another means for the male-dominated consumer industry to exploit females. They've already got us on the scarves!

Diane

Oh dear, I see that Blaine's recommended thread ("The answer to the head covering issue") is quite an amazing piece of rationalization of the idea that the covering is hair, enforced by the claim that it was given to them by the Holy Spirit, which of course effectively disqualifies any contrary view of it right there.

I don't know if I will go over to that thread but I will answer it here at least because he recommended it to me here and it interrupts this discussion to leave.

Despite the claim that the Holy Spirit led them to their view of it, the interpretation does not hold up. It completely falls apart when you recognize that women in those days ALWAYS wore their hair long and it was considered a disgrace to have it short, so except for some unusual circumstance no woman in the congregation would have had short hair.

Their hair was sometimes cut off during mourning, though many women avoided it even on that occasion if they could get away with it, and it might be cut off for a crime such as adultery. It was never worn short as a style as it is today. And long hair on women was the standard all the way down to the 20th century too, when for the very first time in history it became a matter of fashion to cut it short. That's why at first take on this passage we may be puzzled when we see Paul describing it as something nature teaches, but in his day it was universal so he expected that they would all recognize that it was proper and right and according to nature for a woman to have long hair. That's why he could make it part of his argument for an additional covering. And he does appeal to THEM to make this judgment, proving that they DID recognize that long hair on a woman was according to nature just as he expected them to. If it wasn't the universal practice he couldn't have appealed to them for their judgment on that point.

Verse 13 "Judge among yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering"

That's a question he simply would not ask if the covering were long hair because none of them would be praying with their heads "uncovered" in the sense of having short hair.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians apparently to answer some questions the elders had put to him about some problems in the church. For the covering to be hair you have to imagine that some women were insisting on wearing their hair short. There's no way that could possibly have been the case in that time and place. Paul would have had no need whatever to exhort the churches to be sure women had their hair long because they always had it long.

There is some confusion about this caused by the English translation of "covering" for the hair. It's correct enough but it is confusing because the Greek at that point is a different word than the Greek Paul used to describe the covering he was recommending in the rest of that passage. The word used for the hair as a covering can imply an adornment or decoration while the other word simply describes a utilitarian covering.

Also, since someone on that other thread used an old edition of the NIV in support of his argument, I'd like to point out that one of the NIV translators imposed his view of long hair as the covering on the text of 1 Cor 11:2-16 but in a later edition of the NIV it was removed. He admitted it was not in the text but was simply his own belief he'd imposed on it. I've covered this on my blog. There is also a popular Greek dictionary -- it was popular in the 90s anyway -- which implies that hair is the covering. I believe this is a horrible case of men imposing their own fleshly beliefs on God's word.

Since it didn’t get answered in the other thread, I will bring it to this thread... ANY person who believes that a headcovering is a commandment can answer this, not just sscott7 or myfirstlove....

sscott7
No, I'm not Pentecostal, but women are allowed to pray and prophesy in our fellowship. In fact, I haven't ever been part of a fellowship where this is restricted.

I've been to a BUNCH of them!! (edit: Fellowships that didn’t allow it)

What was the last prophecy a woman gave in your church? I'm only asking to see if we are on the same wave length with gift of prophesy.

I was trying to find out how you guys define prophesy and if it lines up with how the Bible define it, brother, how do women prophesy in your church? Is it during worship? Because this is the whole reason that Paul even gave that admonishment is about prophesy (and prayer).

The only reason I am driving this home is because if we can’t agree about prophesy, then the whole belief in headcoverings is sketchy at best, proving it’s become a ‘human’ thing (commandment) instead of a God thing.

God bless you,
Lisa R.

I have been reading this thread and reading 1 Cor 11 and I believe I finally understand what Paul was saying.

I believe what I am seeing is not that the Apostle is talking about "veil" being a cloth or "covered" being a cloth, but he is talking about hair the ENTIRE time.

That is why he finishes with this:
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

This troublesome passage (for which there are not 2 or 3 other witnesses in scripture) is now very clear to me and Paul was indeed dealing with customs in Corinth, but this can be used in a wider sense.

Let's read through it. I am substituting "long hair" or "short hair" for covering or veil.

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having long hair (having his head covered), dishonoreth his head.

And long hair defintely covers a man's head and is seen as effeminate in Paul's time.

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

1Co 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled (short hair) dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

Matthew Henry says, "Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.”

1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled (does not have long hair), let her also be shorn (just shave it all off): but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled (have long hair).

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled (have long hair), forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:
1Co 11:9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
1Co 11:10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head (long hair distinguishes a woman from a man), because of the angels. (long hair is sufficient to show that she is not trying to be like here husband in terms of authority and gender).

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.
1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.
1Co 11:13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God (with short hair) unveiled?

And to explain it all and it fits perfectly with what I have substituted, above.

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1Co 11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

We have no custom in the churches where men have long hair like a women and women have short hair like a man.

Thanks to Matthew Henry for helping me to see this.

Matthew Henry:
He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (1Co_11:13-15): “Judge in yourselves - consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests - is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered?

This is really cool. Paul was never talking about outward clothing to prove inward submission.

He was always talking about long hair on men and short hair on women.

And a final comment by Matthew Henry.
The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (short hair) dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, 1Co_11:3. (He goes on to explain) She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, CUT HER HAIR SHORT, or cut it close, WHICH WAS THE CUSTOM OF THE MAN IN THAT AGE. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God.

Does this make sense to you? It makes perfect sense to me. I don't feel like I am trying to fit a square block into a round hole anymore.

Pilgrim

Dear sister CJ,

I would like to speak to your quote since I gather you are talking about me but I believe you misunderstood me in what you have attributed to me as saying.

Quote-
Oh dear, I see that Blaine's recommended thread ("The answer to the head covering issue") is quite an amazing piece of rationalization of the idea that the covering is hair, enforced by the claim that it was given to them by the Holy Spirit, which of course effectively disqualifies any contrary view of it right there.

I don't know if I will go over to that thread but I will answer it here at least because he recommended it to me here and it interrupts this discussion to leave.

Despite the claim that the Holy Spirit led them to their view of it, the interpretation does not hold up. It completely falls apart when you recognize that women in those days ALWAYS wore their hair long and it was considered a disgrace to have it short, so except for some unusual circumstance no woman in the congregation would have had short hair.
-quote

Sister, I started the thread with letting everyone know that I have also been filled with the Spirit because there are people filled with the Spirit who don’t reach the same conclusions about every detail. I let everyone know toward the end that I was no different than other men who saw it differently because I still don’t have all knowledge concerning the passage to a people group that I am 100’s years away from their time and place.
I never said that the covering was hair enforced by the Holy Spirit who gave it to me. I said that I sensed the Holy Spirit correcting me-that Led me to ask the Lord why I didn’t believe that all women had to wear something extra on top of their head because I am a spirit filled man and I want to do everything that pleases the Lord. My wife is also filled with the Spirit and she would wear something extra on top of her head if the Lord told her to but she going to be led by the Holy Spirit.

While I was contemplating on the Lord vs 15 came to my mind as clear as day and I felt joy in the Spirit. That is when I discovered what I believed was from the help of the Holy Spirit that “hair” could also be for a covering. Now I hope you feel that you are being led by the Holy Spirit in all your discoveries and posting or all your teaching and work is nonsense in trying to get us to be led by the Holy Spirit in all that we do.

I have not corrected anyone on that thread to what they believe they have discovered even though I may not necessarily agree with them on everything. I do know the “hair” is involved in the covering in that passage of scriptures even though he never gives us any detail concerning the covering except that a woman’s head is to be covered and a man’s head is not to be covered. I can believe that there was some type of artificial covering for them besides their hair and I wouldn’t argue that point because of how the covering is implied in vs 5&6 but still there are no details concerning what he is implying.

I must say this again with joy in my Spirit that is always trying to be in tune with the Holy Spirit that vs 15 does not imply that it could be “hair” for a covering-it plainly says “hair is given her for a covering”. Now if one wants to argue with the “Word of God” on what basic are you wanting to argue. Show us anywhere in this passage of scripture that it plainly says “any kind of artificial clothing is given her for a covering” –you won’t find it- but you and others can argue that every woman must wear an artificial covering on their head but I’m going to rejoice in vs 15 where it clearly states “hair is given her for a covering”.

My wife’s covering is beautiful and honoring to me. Now would my wife wear a scarf or shawl if we were invited to a church whose custom was that all the women wear something on top of their head –well out of respect she wouldn’t hesitate because she has worn clothing on top of her head before. Now would my wife wear something on top of her head if she was invited to a church where the women were mixed concerning this issue-well she would seek the Lord- and if he told her I don’t want you to appear to the women of that church that you are promoting that the women who wear an artificial covering on top of their head are more obedient than those who don’t then she wouldn’t wear anything extra because her God-given covering is just fine.

Blessings to all!

Thank you rbanks and pilgrim for your posts. I appreciated them very much and the heart in which they were written.

God Bless
mary

Thanks MaryJane,

I think I have as much joy as rbanks for finally realizing what now seems very obvious to me.

I am thankful my wife honors me with her long hair and she is thankful I honor her with my short hair.

Bless you sister,
Pilgrim

by pilgrim777 on 2012/2/10 7:57:42

Thanks MaryJane,

I think I have as much joy as rbanks for finally realizing what now seems very obvious to me.

I am thankful my wife honors me with her long hair and she is thankful I honor her with my short hair.

Bless you sister,
Pilgrim

_______________________________

I am very thankful to say that GOD has truly given me peace on this matter as well. I have had to wrestle with self though but I know GOD is leading me and I have peace in that.

This is off topic just a bit but I wanted to comment about what you said about "being thankful for your wife's long hair." For a really long time after I was first married I wore my hair much shorter. It was always cut in a feminine fashion but it was "very" short and my husband was not always a fan of how short I sometimes went. I used lots of excuses for keeping it so short, I had five little ones to care for and I homeschooled so who really had time to take care of long hair I kept telling him. Then later in our marriage when we both truly became Christians and gave our lives to the LORD, my husband began studying the Word, he shared with me the things he was seeing and one was concerning a woman's hair being her covering and not cutting it short like a mans. At first I had an attitude of well so its my hair I can do what I want but GOD very quickly convicted me and I repented of that heart. I did my own study and listened to what my husbands heart was on the matter and found that the root of this issue for me was not really about the length of my hair but really about not wanting to give up control. It was completely a self issue on my part and I had to repent not only to my husband, but also to the LORD for my attitude and heart. I now wear my hair longer and I rejoice in the fact that I still have a husband to submit to. Having my hair longer now means a lot to my husband because it is one of the first areas in our marriage where I was willing to set my "opinions" aside, and listen to what GOD was showing him as head of our family. So I am thankful for my husbands short hair too and I know my husband is glad to have a wife whose hair is longer then his :)

God bless
mary

My wife cut her once and it was still longer than mine. I keep mine cut like a Marine because I hate haircuts and just get it cut as short as I can. But anyway, once she cut hers where it was hanging just about the shoulders or maybe just on the shoulders. She was still the same sweet, God-fearing lady. I just like her better with long hair and she actually likes her hair longer, too. I think that is built-in by God.

Anyway, there was something obviously going on with the worldly women in and around Corinth and they may have been having an influence on the Church just like the World has an influence on the Church, today. I see also today many feminists and women who cut their hair much, much shorter than my wife ever did. I mean women today cut it very short or shaven.

It still will always come down to the attitude of the heart.

And culture does play a part. For instance, in India, sisters don't show their ankles but have no problem showing their mid-section (belly and belly button). But ankles are off limits.

Now, just the opposite would be taboo in America.

Pilgrim

And culture does play a part. For instance, in India, sisters don't show their ankles but have no problem showing their mid-section (belly and belly button). But ankles are off limits.

Yet, the Bible does not speak about culture on this topic. If we are to walk down the path of culture, then why not agree with what Sean is saying about the other "cultural" aspects of the Bible spoken about in the Book of Corinthians? We cannot pick and choose what we "wish" to be cultural and what we do not wish to be cultural. Either Paul was talking about the Corinthian church only in this book, or he is talking about the church in it's entirety.

Again, this is walking a dangerous path of choosing what we wish to believe, instead of what the Bible says.

Repeating what Solomon said, it's only a cultural issue when it comes to Hats and Blue Bonnets.

Respectfully, the Bible does not say this. This idea that head covering is a cultural topic is something that man has inserted in the place of the Bible. I will agree that the Bible speaks about the hair as a covering.

We do not practice cloth head coverings in my home, yet I can respect that sisters can either wear it, or not, all for the glory of the Lord. Anything done outside of faith is sin.

Greetings

I to just wanted to say that I have no issue with Sean(view), or Lisa, and CJ wearing the head covering. I appreciate their hearts on the matter. I know just as I have spent time searching for GODS will and heart on this matter they have too. I know they are seeking to be faithful to what GOD is showing them today as I am doing so also :)

God bless you all and much love for you all
mary

Folks, I am convinced "head covering" means hair.

Paul makes this abundantly clear to me. Thank you for extending me the grace and receiving me as a brother.

Regarding culture, Paul told Timothy to take wine for his stomach. We don't have to obey that if we don't want to, do we?

I was just saying that in the culture of Corinth the temple prostitutes and worldly women had short or shaven hair (covering).

To me, Paul is drawing a distinction about God's creation and one of the features that make men and women different from a physical standpoint.

I am content with what I am letting the Scriptures say for themselves. I don't see 2 or 3 other witnesses in the NT for this passage. I only see this one passage related to Corinth. Neither the other 11 Apostles or Jesus talked abou this.

I have peace with God on my conclusion and a witness in my heart that Paul is talking about long and short hair in this entire passage. Short hair means uncovered and long hair means covered. If God meant for women to wear hats to replace the covering He already gave them, they would have been born with one. Instead, He lets us choose whether we want to come into agreement with Him as to how He made us and His order in creation. Submission to God and to husbands is always a heart matter and the only outward proof are the fruits of the Spirit not a piece of clothing.

It only makes spiritual common sense to me and it coheres with the preponderance of scripture and the Spirit of Grace in the NT.

And I have no problem with anyone believing any other way.

Peace to all,
Pilgrim

yet I can respect that sisters can either wear it, or not, all for the glory of the Lord. Anything done outside of faith is sin.

Thank you, brother! Actually seeing this topic move along has helped me appreciate that I am now Presbyterian. We don’t have this issue. Still, some of us cover ourselves in a robe. On my first Sunday there I was handed a robe, and I thought – “How fast can I get myself free from this burdensome thing!” But, like any habits, after you do something repetitively, it feels wrong to do otherwise. And for me it is a way I express my submission to my church family - for the glory of God. I love my people. I guess that’s my “head covering”.

In the past when I visited Brethren churches that practiced head coverings, I wore one too – and haven’t minded being asked to do so.

Folks, I am convinced "head covering" means hair.

Phew...

Diane

Brother Approved.

Your story sounds close to pastoral abuse, in my opinion. You see a lot of this type of behavior in cult settings (not saying that is what you were in).

Spirit of Jezebel in that church maybe?.?.?

Hi roadsign,

Always enjoy your posts. I think the "rule" is that men and women should look distinctively different. Distinctively male and distinctively female. But, we also have to be careful about rules, don't we?

Our African sisters actually have very closely cropped hair. I am sure they and their husbands and their church family have other ways to distinguish between men and women. Not sure if they have a difficult time with the feminist spirit that Americans have.

I know when I was invited to a Brethren Assembly, that as a "denomination" one of their outward marks is the head covering. Some do and some don't "cover" with cloth, but whatever one does it must be done in faith.

Yes, you are right. Everyone has their "head covering" or habit. Whether it is robes, or their best Sunday clothes or whatever. Just do it all in faith and concentrate on the most important things.

Pilgrim

Well, it all comes down to being gracious and loving Jim.

I don't know if you have been in many and varied fellowships but I have and when you are in different situations and fellowships, it doesn't build relationships very well if you start picking on people's peculiar traditions and habits. Robes are also worn by people in choirs. There are some real Godly men by the way, that wear robes.

As we have seen in this discussion, many people think the external cloth is a man-made tradition. I have no problem with traditions as long as they don't nullify the Word of God. And you have not made a good and convincing case that external cloths on the head as coverings are not man-made traditions, either.

Paul had no problem with traditions and customs, either. He became all things to all men that he might win some.

Pilgrim

Well Sean, I guess it's you, me and Lisa sharing the unpopular point of view here. I appreciate your support. The hair delegation seem to have won their point, although I can't say I'm favorable to their methods.

I'm sure you agree with me that the point isn't whether individuals choose to cover or not, this isn't something God left to us to determine for ourselves, it isn't about custom or tradition, the issue is what Paul meant and what God would want for the entire church. And I think you made the case and so did I (I haven't seen Lisa's arguments) that he was calling for a cloth covering. That's how the early church understood him, and that's how all the churches down to the 20th century understood him.

This is NOT a Roman Catholic tradition, this belongs to all the churches.

Interestingly, a point we haven't gone into here is that the main way this passage is interpreted these days is not hair or a cloth covering but the idea that Paul is merely advocating feminine appearance. Someone has mentioned that opinion here but it should be acknowledged that it is a major line of reasoning that I believe got started by Thomas Schreiner in a book put out by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I deal with Dr. Schreiner's article on my blog, but the only thing I want to say about that position here is that they all agree that Paul was requiring a cloth head covering, not hair. They simply insist on seeing it as a cultural fad of his day that we must replace with whatever suits our culture today. That can't be so of course because none of the cultures involved required the head covering as Paul preached it and Paul was not arguing from secular culture but from God's creation order of the man first and the woman from the man, and the universal differences between men and women, never from mere human culture.

However, the main point I want to make is that all who hold that point of view reject hair as the proper understanding of the passage.

It's only very recently that the interpretation of hair has become so popular, and I believe both you and I made good cases against that, but nobody that I've seen has actually addressed any of the arguments. At least not on this thread.

You also made the excellent case against long hair that Paul would not have gone to such pains to make so many separate arguments over fifteen verses if all he meant to say was that women should have long hair. In a culture where long hair was the norm that would simply make no sense and be a huge waste of time.

Apparently there is no way to actually engage anyone on the other side in the reasoning involved on this subject. Unless you have succeeded on some other thread I haven't yet seen. People have their beliefs or their impressions they believe come from the Holy Spirit and aren't interested in addressing the many good reasons that have been given why hair is not the head covering.

And these are reasons I also believe have been given by the Holy Spirit and not conjured up from the flesh. In fact, of course I believe the hair interpretation comes from the flesh. It's a lot easier on the female ego than having to wear a scarf, allows her to display her glory proudly and so on.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this. I don't think I've ever encountered such a complete unwillingness to address the specifics of the argument.

Well, it's been interesting but I see no point in continuing.

http://gloryhidden.blogspot.com/

Hi Jim,

You did not kill any sacred cows here, though I will say that they do make good hamburgers. I was speaking about graciousness and love when you are in other fellowships that might not dress just like you do. Nothing about their dress being "empty deceit" or "vain philosophies". I don't think you understand what I am trying to convey to you. That's ok. We don't have to camp out here.

Pilgrim

Greetings CJeanne

I read though your last post and just wanted to make sure you know that I welcome you to the forum and that I have no issue with you sharing what GOD has laid upon your heart.

I hope you and I can agree that since this is not a salvation issue we can still call each other sisters in CHRIST and perhaps share on many other topics as HE leads us :)

There is a very good discussion on the topic of modesty going on that I have been very encouraged by perhaps if you feel led by the LORD you might check it out. I know that is another topic of interest to many sister who walk with the LORD.

I hope all who have taken part in this thread will be blessed, for me this was never about being "right" or proving another person "wrong"...I pray as in all things JESUS will be lifted up and glorified.

God bless you
mary

Folks, I am convinced "head covering" means hair.

This is a very widespread take on this passage, I know. But if this was so, then men would need to shave their heads when prophesying/praying... Is that what you all believe who share the view that the hair is the covering? If not, what is your explanation?

I have followed these threads quite closely, though this is my first comment... I haven't seen this addressed yet--if it has been, forgive me.

And please, let's not make it a matter of whether it will get us to heaven or not...since when does that factor determine our Christian walk??

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. -Matthew 6:33

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus -Romans 3:22-24

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. -Romans 8:28

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. -Revelation 22:13

But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. -1 John 1:9

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" -Acts 2:14-16

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. -Jeremiah 29:11

His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. -Revelation 19:12

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. -Hebrews 13:8

Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. -2 Kings 2:11

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. -1 Corinthians 11:3-5

Umm, hold on a second here Lord… Is this true?

Notice we only question the last quoted verse. Why is that?

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “DID GOD REALLY SAY, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

Did God really say that Eve? Is that REALLY what He meant? Surely you can't be THAT simplistic Eve…

Thanks Jim. That's very nice of you. I'm sure we agree on much.

Because I came out of the RCC I was very zealous when I was a young Christian to see Protestants remove all influences of the RCC thinking that it would bring the Church to where it needed to be. But then I began to realize how their traditions so permeated everything. The lectern, hierarchical organization, clergy, pews, etc, etc. Then I saw that the system of Protestantism also had their own man-made traditions (tithing, Sabbath, etc) apart from the RCC that nullified God's Word. As I grew in the Lord I began to see that we all have a strong tendency to be religious and to systematize our relationship with God (leaning upon our own understanding). We all have a tendency to think we know how everything is done and if we just get the outward right, everything will be great. But that's not true, is it? The outward is the least of our problems, right?. It is the inward that causes us the most problems. In fact, the outward is only an expression of what is in our hearts.

The Holy Spirit is continually drawing us to Christ. To know Him and to experience the reality of coming under the authority and leadership of Christ through the Holy Spirit. And the Lord wins our hearts not by pointing out all the wrong traditions that our ancestors have passed down to us, but by drawing us to Himself. God's Word and the Holy Spirit will cleanse us. God doesn't want to give us head knowledge about all that is wrong in Christendom. He wants to give us heart knowledge about Him.

And even if we have successfully removed every last vestige of man-made tradition and commandments, the Lord will then dig into us and show us ourselves. How utterly religious we are. How much we eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and not Him, the Tree of Life.

So, since I have limited time on earth to live my life in a manner pleasing to the Lord and instead of spending all my time trying to clean up Protestantism (losing battle), I want to spend my time getting to know the Lord and learning to follow and trust Him and allowing Him to work in me (conforming me to the image of Christ).

If we saw in each others hearts what God sees we would probably have much more mercy and love towards each other. Especially, if we knew every one saw our heart. (Who shows mercy will receive mercy.) We would see serious infractions in each others hearts against God and realize that the head coverings, robes, pews, lecterns, hierarchy, tithing, Sabbath Day, etc is not where we should be spending our time.

There is only one worthy of all glory and honor.

Be an example in love and deed and give room for the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives.

Just my take on things,

Blessings to you my friend,
Pilgrim

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. -1 Corinthians 11:3-5"

WHO "questions this verse," Mr. Learjet? I certainly don't. I understand it to mean that if a woman will not cover her head -- with a scarf or something similar -- it's the same as being uncovered altogether so she might as well shave off her hair. Hair is only a covering in the sense that it tells us to cover our heads. Just as a man's shorter hair is to tell him not to wear a hat in the assembly. How DO you understand the point about a man's shorter hair anyway? If a woman's long hair is sufficient for a covering, can a man wear a hat in the assembly because his hair is short and that's all that matters? But if you require him not to wear a hat why don't you also require a woman to wear something on her head -- that's the parallel meaning of the whole passage. Men uncover, women cover.

And I'd like to ask, why don't you or anybody else here address the actual points that Sean and I have made about why hair is not the covering? All you do is bring up ruminations like this one that don't address the issue and misrepresent the arguments you disagree with.

Hello Approved:

Man's tradition is indeed a tough nut to crack and your argument comes from man's tradition and I'm finding it as hard as a rock here with nothing to justify it.

Paul did NOT say the hair was the covering he is recommending, that is a misreading of the passage, sorry but it is. You aren't thinking it through.

Paul used a different word to describe the hair as a covering than the word he'd used in the rest of the passage to describe the covering he wants us to wear. The hair was being used as an example from nature of what we are required to do, cover our heads, just as a man's naturally shorter and sometimes skimpier hair was to be an example for him NOT to cover.

Do you want me to quote all the GREAT SPIRITUAL men of the faith who held this position down the ages or are you content to accuse them all of following the traditions of men instead of the Spirit? (Actually I don't need to, the first post in this thread quotes many of them).

Yes, her hair IS HER GLORY. Go back and read verse 7. It is CHRIST'S GLORY that is to be displayed in the assembly, which is the man's head, while the GLORY OF MAN which is woman's head is to be HIDDEN from view, and that includes HER OWN GLORY. A woman's head, including her long hair, competes with Christ's glory if it is displayed, that is why it is to be covered.

And how DO you understand the fact that all the early churches (see Tertullian) and all the churches down to the 20th century required women to cover their heads? Why will nobody address this fact? Can you really persuade yourself that they were all just following the traditions of men while finally in the incredibly apostate 20th century some specially anointed ones started getting it right? REALLY? The very same century that got women started cutting their hair, I might add. 1900 years of error and finally this miserable age gets it right? That is modern hubris to the max it seems to me.

Paul treats the long hair as a GIVEN, as the natural way women wear their hair and that was true then and up until very recently. There was no reason whatever for him to even think of advocating long hair because they already HAD long hair. It could not possibly have been a problem in the Corinthian church that women were insisting on having their hair short. Short hair was regarded as a disgrace and a detraction from feminine beauty.

Why will you not address this point?

"This is a very widespread take on this passage, I know. But if this was so, then men would need to shave their heads when prophesying/praying... Is that what you all believe who share the view that the hair is the covering? If not, what is your explanation?"

Hello savedtoserve,
I just want to say this is a reasonable point and I recognize that Approved didn't answer it. If hair really is the covering then men's hair should be removed altogether to fulfill the requirement of uncovering their heads.

Since clearly they don't believe this they should recognize that hair can't be the covering Paul is advocating. It's a logical point based on the scripture and answering it with ancient customs isn't an answer.

Hi Approved,

Concerning why she doesn’t believe the hair is the covering.
Maybe CJ thinks that the woman’s hair is to be completely covered up so she want have any glory on display. She thinks that women shouldn’t have any praise of long hair but that it needs to be covered.

What she doesn’t realize is that she is on the same line as shaving a woman’s head so that you can’t see her hair (glory) which the scriptures say is a shame for a woman to be shaven. This attitude is degrading a woman’s long hair which was given to her as a covering. Now the bible gives the governmental order of headship set up by God and the same inspired word says that her “hair” is given her for a covering.

Now I wonder who CJ thinks gave her the ability to have long hair as a covering and do you believe that God ever gives us anything that is wrong for us. I don’t see how you can believe that her hair must be covered in worship because God is the one who gave it to her. God does not cause people to be proud in a fleshly way and there are places in the bible that says that if a woman does such and such she is to be praised. Just thinking…

I must say though she is helping the women a little on her site because she doesn’t believe women should wear an artificial covering all the time but only during worship assemblies. I say thank God for that insight that she doesn’t believe women need to go around in bondage to an article on their head all the time like the Muslim women have to do.

Blessings to all!

Thanks for your comment Mary Jane, of course I regard you as a sister although we disagree on this subject. That is never an issue. In my Christian life I'm surrounded by women who don't cover and think I'm wrong.

But as far as this being about who is right versus wrong, I don't look at it that way. It's about what the scripture means, it's about what Paul meant, it's about what God means, it's about Truth. When there is a contradiction between points of view, both can't be right. Of course if we can't resolve it we are still brothers and sisters in Christ, but this is not the kind of issue that is just about the individual conscience, it's about how God wants His people to behave in the churches, so I for one consider it very important that the truth be arrived at if at all possible.

Hello RBanks,
Why do you keep talking about ME as if this is about MY views? I didn't write scripture. My opinion is irrelevant. This is about what PAUL intended, and I'm merely reflecting what I believe he intended.

It isn't I who think the hair should be covered or the female head, this is what Paul is saying. Please read verse 7. I didn't write verse 7, Paul did.

READ THE PASSAGE, I have said NOTHING but what I derive from that passage about PAUL'S VIEW, not my own, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I never had a view on any of this until I studied that passage.

I've answered all the rest of your accusation many times already. It would be nice if you or those on your side would finally address the actual issues.

I'm coming to the conclusion that those who believe as you do have no interest at all in truth, but just like to accuse people who disagree with you of all kinds of false things and make nasty insinuations about us.

Specifically, THIS is utterly ridiculous:

"I don’t see how you can believe that her hair must be covered in worship because God is the one who gave it to her."

He also gave me breasts and other parts of the body that He requires be covered up. In fact it could be that He'd prefer we covered up everything from the neck down in public as a general rule. After all, the angels cover themselves with their wings in the presence of God, it is utterly utterly ridiculous of you to suggest that God doesn't desire that we cover ourselves.

You cannot answer this passage with your own silly musings about what God would or would not require. God Himself SAYS what He requires in this passage and it's our job to understand THAT, not just go on about what WE think God SHOULD do.

WHO "questions this verse," Mr. Learjet? I certainly don't.

Hi CJ,

My apologies for not communicating better, forgive me for 'drive-by-posting'. My point is why do we accept the first 14 scriptures at face value but then when it comes to this one we hold it to a different standard?

Honestly, I agree with you on the matter. I was trying to point out that the first 14 verses we don't have to dig into the Greek to really find out what they mean, they are written by fishermen (and others) for fishermen but this one scripture seems to fall into a different category, we need to ask theologians for meanings.

Due to the level of controversy generated by this subject it's very clear that this subject is one that REALLY irritates the demonic realm.

Since the Lord is never oppressive, ever, why does He instruct us to do this very thing?

Personally, I believe it's a piece of fabric, I take my hat off in church (as one of the other posters pointed out) and when I say grace, no one tells me to do this, I wasn't brought up in a religious family, but something inside of me has always made me feel like this is the way it should be. I was in sin and felt this way, no one had to point me to 1 Corinthians 11 to tell me this.

I understand the Islamic oppression that this represents and honestly don't equate:

veil = oppression

Islamic gals also wear red shirts, does that mean red shirt = oppression? I was in THE MOST muslim city (thanks Jonathan) in the US this afternoon, a missionary there told me that it's the only city in the US where the daily call to prayer is announced 5 times during the day VIA a PA system. They drive BMW's, Mercedes, and Ford's do they equal oppression too? Or is it only a head covering that this applies to?

Sometimes I ask my kids to do things that they don't understand but I still don't want them doing them. I don't always have time to sit down and try to reason with a 9 year old, when they get a little older I'll tell them that the reason that I didn't want them to 'sleep over so and so's house' is because I didn't know their parents very well or I had a check in my spirit. I'll explain that their parents were both molested because of their parents lack of wisdom. That's a lot to put on an 8yr old, but one day he will understand. He doesn't need to know now, he just needs to understand that I always have his welfare in mind first, even when he doesn't understand, but even when I'm not looking he needs to listen to this. I'd rather err on the side of caution, and for the most part, even if I don't understand something, I believe that our loving Father is the same way.

Just my $.02, (I think I'm up to about $.08 in this thread now), and again my apologies for not being more clear earlier.

Much peace!

Well everyone, don't you think we are at an impasse?

Cjeanne says:

This is about what PAUL intended, and I'm merely reflecting what I believe he intended.

And we graciously extend to you the freedom to believe that. And the other side is reflecting WHAT THEY BELIEVE HE INTENDED. Fair enough?

So, maybe we should call it a day. Seems obvious that we should.

The Lord continue to bless and keep everyone,
Pilgrim

Thank you for your nice response, learjet. I have a hard time getting what you intended but it's nice to know you didn't intend it the way I first read it.

It's true that there are difficulties with this passage that we don't encounter in many other parts of scripture, but it isn't the only difficult passage.

I'm convinced that God is allowing the Muslims to grow in population and in influence in America as part of His judgment against this nation. He's done the same in Europe already. It's so odd that even after 9/11 the Muslims are becoming MORE influential and even in a way popular in America. I have to see this as God's hand in judgment. The idea that any city in America is subjected to Islamic prayer over a PA system sets my teeth on edge. 9/11 was His wakeup call to us and we haven't heeded it. It's scary to just watch it all happen while the nation is doing nothing to repent before God and save ourselves.

I've many times thought that part of all this could be that because their women cover their heads God making them an example to us. They overdo it, so that if we did it as Paul requires it wouldn't be as extreme as what they do, but I've often worried that He's saying we are to cover at least in church and since we don't this is part of our judgment, to be overrun by a people whose women do cover their heads.

Pilgrim, RBanks was talking about his OWN opinions completely apart from what the scripture says and treating mine as my own rather than being about what Paul intended. Please go reread RBanks' post.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16

Yes Lord, that's true!

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. -Matthew 6:33

Yes Lord, that's true!

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6

Yes Lord, that's true!

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus -Romans 3:22-24

Yes Lord, that's true!

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. -Romans 8:28

Yes Lord, that's true!

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. -Revelation 22:13

Yes Lord, that's true!

But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. -1 John 1:9

Yes Lord, that's true!

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26

Yes Lord, that's true!

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" -Acts 2:14-16

Yes Lord, that's true!

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9

Yes Lord, that's true!

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. -Jeremiah 29:11

Yes Lord, that's true!

His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. -Revelation 19:12

Yes Lord, that's true!

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. -Hebrews 13:8

Yes Lord, that's true!

Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. -2 Kings 2:11

Yes Lord, that's true!

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. -1 Corinthians 11:3-5

Again, sorry for the mis-communication, my point was we take the first 14 verses posted above at face value written by fishermen, for fishermen.

Why when we talk about 1 Cor 11 do we hold it to a different standard? Now it's time to bring in the theologians rather than just accepting what it says?

Hopefully, that is a bit more clear. :-)

Hi CJ,
Thanks for finally posting to me after all this time. Remember you reference to me first and more than one time. I have decidedly to post to you since you posted to me. I will not comment on all your post but I would like to comment on some of it.

Quote-
He also gave me breasts and other parts of the body that He requires be covered up
-Quote

Of course God requires our nakedness to be covered up every since the fall of mankind. I see that you have studied on this issue a lot and have studied many of man’s interpretations of it but I do believe you would have to agree that there is no passage in the bible that God ever said that He gave women long breasts for a covering and a glory to her but when she comes into a place of worship she needs to cover them so she want dishonor her husband. No, No sister every since the fall of man our private parts are to be covered period in public.

I have never said that they didn’t use an artificial covering of some kind back then but the main thing I have said is what the scripture says (hair is given her for a covering} but you and those you agree with seem to have no problem adding words that are not written like “her hair also needs to be covered”. Hey and if you honestly believe that then I won’t hold that against you but hopefully you will not hold it against me for not reading what is not clearly there.

Hey sister CJ when you get to heaven and you get so close to the throne and if you happen to look off into the distance and see” oh rbanks” please know that I haven’t tried to be unkind to you sister.

Just know this also that I have to be convinced without a shadow of a doubt concerning any interpretation that goes beyond what is clearly written.

Blessings to you!

CJeanne,

I know the tendency of our flesh is to be scared but the Lord will finish what He started in us. There is a much greater work that God needs to do in our hearts in order for us to handle the coming persecution and tribulation. Tribulation is the lot of the Church in 2/3 of the world today and that does not mean the Church is being judged in Iran, China, Vietnam and other countries.

We need to resist the fear and just press in to the Lord. The Lord may be allowing persecution, that is true, but many Muslims may be reached for Christ. I seriously doubt not covering is part of any judgement since it is not clear in the Word to large groups of Christians. That would not be fair of the Lord to put something so ambiguous in Scripture without 2 or 3 other "witnesses". Covering or not covering is not what God is displeased with. He is displeased with spiritual fornication with the world, Babylon, and that is why He is calling us out.

May the Lord bless you abundantly in Him and I pray you receive His peace and that He gives you grace to cast all your cares upon Him.

Pilgrim

by CJeanne on 2012/2/10 16:13:05

Thanks for your comment Mary Jane, of course I regard you as a sister although we disagree on this subject. That is never an issue. In my Christian life I'm surrounded by women who don't cover and think I'm wrong.

But as far as this being about who is right versus wrong, I don't look at it that way. It's about what the scripture means, it's about what Paul meant, it's about what God means, it's about Truth. When there is a contradiction between points of view, both can't be right. Of course if we can't resolve it we are still brothers and sisters in Christ, but this is not the kind of issue that is just about the individual conscience, it's about how God wants His people to behave in the churches, so I for one consider it very important that the truth be arrived at if at all possible.
_________________________

I think sister its time for me to completely step away from this topic for good. I see that we are at a point were continuing on can do no good. IF I were to suddenly say ok I will wear the veil because of all that you have said I would be going against what GOD has shown me and I would be actually dishonoring my husband who has prayed and studied this topic with me as well. So you believe you have understanding on the scripture as do I and I think we will just have to leave it to GOD. I trust He is faithful, HE has never failed me before and I don't suspect HE will now.
Please know that when I fellowship with other believers I do so with a clear conscious as I am sure you do to. I do not attempt to draw attention to myself, I dress very modestly, if I do not fully understand what is being shared I wait until I am home with my husband and seek HIS thoughts on the matter.

With that I will just say that I hope you see you in the other threads and God Bless you

maryjane

I didn't mean to be trying to impose my view on you, Mary Jane, I recognize that in many cases there is going to remain a disagreement among believers in Christ even after we've done our utmost to present a clear view of scripture.

I just wanted to say that I think it's important that we look at this as a question of truth even if we can't resolve it right now, because too often it's made a matter of someone being right and someone being wrong instead of a matter of what God said. That seemed important to me to say but maybe it would have been better not to say it.

But yes, perhaps we'll meet on other threads. I did take a look at the modesty thread but haven't yet felt led to post there.

Blessings in the Lord

Hi Jesus is God

I have a serious question here. For years I've had in mind that we are probably looking at very severe judgment in the near future, captivity as you say, or beheadings or economic depression to the point of starvation. I haven't shied away from the idea, I figure it would probably be a severe opportunity for growth in the Lord for one thing. I don't fear it, or at least I haven't in the past. The older and more arthritic I get the less I relish the idea of additional suffering. But it's still true that I don't shy away from it.

But at the same time there is this longing for revival -- which is after all what this site is all about, and I share that longing. True revival means deep repentance and could even mean God's withdrawing His judgment.

Sometimes I feel we just accept the idea that judgment is coming without even allowing ourselves to hope that God might yet grant a great repentance -- it would be among believers of course -- judgment begins at the house of God, but if it's a true revival it would spread to the surrounding world.

I know people are praying for revival but at the same time it seems like there is potential power in the church of God that we aren't even beginning to try to bring to effective reality in the world and I puzzle over why. Do we not pray for revival enough? Do not enough of us pray? Does God want a reformation from us first, a corrective of the sins in the churches, certainly there are many, individual repentance among his people?

Is it perhaps that we do lack that unity you are talking about? If so how do we seek it?

I don't see this topic as a "debate against the majority of our sisters" as you put it. I don't see efforts to correct what we understand to be a misreading of scripture to be a wrong. (and I don't see this misreading to be the fault of the sisters anyway, but of the pastors and leaders). If there are sins and errors among God's people that are weakening us against the encroachment of the world, even inviting judgment, at least keeping us from revival, it seems right to try to correct them. But I can see that it can only really be done under the conviction of the Spirit. That is, in revival itself.

I'm sorry if this post isn't terribly clear. It just seemed that you too had that same attitude that judgment is coming and there's nothing we can do about it that I too so often have. And yet I see this potential powerhouse of a church and wonder if God would still wake us up or HOW we might wake up.

I agree with most of what you said and I wish many of us would do exactly what you say is most important, especially me -- get alone with God with fasting and crying out for mercy humility love and discernment. That above all is needed, by lots and lots of us.

I hope this question isn't merely provocative, but if you believed as I do that the church is insulting God and offending His angels by disrespecting His creation order by not requiring women to cover our heads in the assembly, would you say what you did about how changing this would not do anything to bring revival? The operative word being of course IF you believed as I do.

I've often worried that He's saying we are to cover at least in church and since we don't this is part of our judgment, to be overrun by a people whose women do cover their heads.

Interesting point, sister. It would be worth studying the historical periods of revival - those times of intense Holy Spirit conviction, and see how common the head covering was a point of Holy Spirit conviction. Speaking of revival, it’s interesting that during those very times or in personal conviction that sometimes women were anointed by the Spirit to preach and evangelize – even to the utter parts of the world. You’d think it would have been the opposite.

But, if the real point is that Jesus be one's covering, then these were among the ones who were truly covered, and truly submitted to God and to others in Christian love. And that is the highest form of obedience to our Lord,is it not?

There could very well be some worthy insight drawn from revival history on this topic of head coverings. The challenge in such an endeavor would be to overcome the besetting tendency seen in research: select evidence that supports one's own view, and overlook the other.

Diane

Because the NT teaches so strongly against any righteusness obtained by the flesh, it is really hard for many of us to "see" how this teaching of being covered synchronizes with the whole of NT teaching. And I think that is what people have a hard time with, besides the fact that it has no other witnesses in the NT. Most doctrine is mentioned more than once and by more than 1 Apostle, too. It's not that people are being "disobedient" as they are sometimes accused of being or that they don't have "light". In fact, they do have light and the light that they have tells them the contrary about such a teaching.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

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

We are under no laws except the law of love which comes from the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and in this discussion the law of love must end up trumping everything or else we have all failed. So, I hope when all is said and done, the Lord wins and that would be that we all love one another.

Pilgrim

I can only speak for myself Jim.

In the particular instance of Corinth, I believe hair was the topic of discussion.

I do not judge my sisters based on their hairstyle. I don't even judge the unsaved based on hair.

Again, I am only speaking for myself. I have no rules or laws regarding hair.

Pilgrim

Scott,

I can only reiterate what I have already been saying.

I make no rules about hair. I understand what was going on in Corinth.

In addition our African sisters have virtually no hair. It is closely cropped. That is their culture, unlike Corinth.

I don't judge our African sisters as being disobedient to the Word or not having light.

You are expending an inordinate amount of time and effort on this subject.

Good day to you,
Pilgrim

No offense taken. Of course, I am expending a lot of time, too. I thought that was obvious by implication of me posting.

The point is that we are all expending much to much time on this and as I said before it seems we are at an impasse and should agree to disagree on this. What would be your solution at this point?

Very kindly,
Pilgrim

Sean. Thank you for your contributions. They have not fell on deaf ears. If anything, your zeal for the Word is refreshing.

Blessings brother. :-)

I must have posted when you did, Sean.

I'm content to let you have the last word.

I agree with Miccah, your zeal is refreshing.

Pilgrim

I'm sure, to some degree, God has used all of us for His glory even when we've believed something that's wrong.

This is a superb point. And it brings us to a truth on which we can all indeed agree: None of us would consider ourselves to understand and apply scripture in its fullest potential. There is much in the Bible that you and I have yet to grasp and adjust. But regardless of how well we succeed at that, in the end, we are utterly dependent on God’s mercy.

Before this topic closes it is worth considering the effect such a discussion has on each of us – and maybe what drives the topic to stay alive. I speak personally: It is unsettling to read/hear a suggestion that what is most precious to me, my worship expression before God, is questioned – whether judged as redundant, rebellious, religious, or legalistic. Simply put: It hurts very, deeply. That no doubt drives us to restore our own sense of assurance and stability - by defending our practice.

But here is where our graciousness to one another can win the day. We may indeed have contributed to the woundings and fears of one another, (and I have no doubt made such contributions); but healing comes as we move on and embrace each other with deepest affection and admiration. We are, after all, brothers and sisters.

Diane

Amen Diane.

Love covers a multitude of sins.

Sean, thank you for your kind words,

Blessings to all,
Pilgrim

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, BOTH THEIRS AND OURS:

Apparently this topic is winding down now and I'm content to leave it there. There are many misunderstandings that make it hard to leave it but it's pretty clear we aren't going to be able to resolve them, so I'll keep my comments to a minimum.

You didn't answer my question, Jesus is Lord, if you believed as I do that the churches are offending God and the angels by not requiring women to cover, whether that would change your view of whether God might bless us with revival if they did begin to require covering.

Apparently you just felt you had to argue that I'm wrong again. OK. But let me be clear that in this whole discussion I am not criticizing individuals and it's too bad if some women are taking it that way. To my mind this is about church government and not really about individuals. It's not individuals who are out of favor with God but the whole church -- and I believe the churches, or a great many of them, are out of favor on more than one issue too, another being divorce and remarriage.

I certainly have no idea that anyone is less righteous or has less of the mind of Christ who does not cover in church, and I too know many women of God who don't cover. I didn't cover until a few years ago myself and felt God with me and leading me often before I did, and it took me quite a long time to grow into the idea that I should cover too.

Perhaps what Watchman Nee said, that was quoted in the first post on this thread, gets at the main problem here. He said Christians have a hard time grasping God's government as a separate order of things apart from His grace.

I really appreciate what you have said today, Sean Scott, you have a wonderfully clear logical way of approaching this subject.

Blessings in our Lord to all here.
CJ

Hi everyone,

Real quick, I feel a need to say that I have been blessed by a common understanding and love for God by the many posts on this subject.

Thanks Pilgrim, Sean, JIG, Dianne and others for the love you have shown. If I can just add one more thing because I truly believe that both sides of this issue really want to please the Lord in everything at least that is what I’m also feeling from Sean on his conclusion of the head covering.

This brings me to let everyone know why I can’t do or teach something extra other than what I am convinced is from the Holy Spirit. I have studied the book of acts extensively on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and also water baptism wanting with all my heart to do and received exactly the same as the Apostles. This almost lead me to be baptized in “Jesus name only” because it is more obvious that every time they were baptized that they mention “the Lord” or “Jesus Christ” and never did they mention the words {Father, Son, Holy Spirit} in any of the baptismal passages and the head covering is only mention in one passage and never as clear as the baptismal passages in Acts.

Struggling with this for a while I received a revelation that I was baptized in Jesus name when I was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him. I was baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit and that when I was baptized in water that it represented being baptized into His death. The argument shouldn’t be over the” Father, Son, Holy Spirit baptism” or “Jesus name only baptism” but that we understand what it means and that we are in Christ.

Now looking at 1 cor 11:2-16 the argument shouldn’t be over what we are not sure about because we none lived at that particular time but that we understand God’s governmental order and that we worship bringing honor to our head. Now I am not saying this to start another debate but looking at something else that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:11-16 (KJV)
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Pay special attention to that word “nevertheless” and see if he is not saying something else. Now up to this point he had mainly said that the woman was primarily for the man but now he begins to elevate the woman a little and says that however neither is the man without the woman and goes on to say that in the Lord they are not without one another. Then He goes on to say as the woman is of the man even so is the man also by the woman but all things are of God. Is this not Paul’s way of saying in the Lord the man and the woman are equal. Then he says something even more amazing He asks them to judge for themselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray unto God uncovered.

Now here is something else to consider that in verse 16 he says “that if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” this is a little after he said to judge in themselves. Now it seems to me that Paul was more concerned that we got the governmental order of God understood- than in what particular custom we practiced. In other words there is no need to argue over a custom it is more important that you keep the commandments of God. Now if I understand the bible we are never asked to judge within ourselves whether a commandment was proper to do or not but we are told to obey all His commandments.

John 13:34-35 (KJV)
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Blessings to all!

I've appreciated the encore here. Many thanks, friends.
Blessing to you for your thoughtful diligence in wrestling through on this.

PS Sometimes there have been multiple encores after particularly spectacular concerts with rousing applauses. Will this be one such event?

Diane

Hi RBanks,
Apparently I didn't respond to an earlier post of yours, not intentionally, just lost track of it I think, but although I too don't want to keep a debate going here I thought I might respond to what you say here:

>>>Pay special attention to that word “nevertheless” and see if he is not saying something else. Now up to this point he had mainly said that the woman was primarily for the man but now he begins to elevate the woman a little and says that however neither is the man without the woman and goes on to say that in the Lord they are not without one another. Then He goes on to say as the woman is of the man even so is the man also by the woman but all things are of God. Is this not Paul’s way of saying in the Lord the man and the woman are equal. >>In other words there is no need to argue over a custom it is more important that you keep the commandments of God.

That might make for a nice new discussion.

"The Government of God".

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The first thing that is being communicated is that the responsibility of governing His people will be "on His shoulders".

And symbolically, what is usually upon shoulders? A head. And our Head is Christ.

So, how does Christ "govern" His people? By the Holy Spirit for sure. But what are some examples of Christ governing His Church? That would be my new thread.

By the way, I just found another view of 1 Cor 11. Steve Atkerson of New Testament Restoration Foundation believes it means that women should not pray or prophesy at all and that 1 Cor 11 is really speaking about private prayer meetings and not church gatherings. My, my, my. I did not know that.

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=16

Well, there you have it. I am sure there is view #4 and #5 out there somewhere. If you change to please one group, you will undoubtedly offend another. Solution: Be faithful to what God is showing you and walk in love.

Pilgrim

And here is Eric Svendsen's exegesis on the matter.

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=36

The Issue of Head Coverings

by Eric Svendsen

When Paul wrote that a woman ought to pray with her head covered, was he referring to long hair or to a garment?

1 Co 11:12-16 clearly states that women should have their heads covered while praying or prophesying. It also ranks among the most difficult of all passages in the NT. The intent of this article is not to give an exhaustive analysis of this passage, and so no attempt will be made to deal with every issue that surrounds this passage. Rather, this chapter will show whether or not Paul sees head covering as a normative church custom; or indeed, whether Paul sees this as a valid custom for any church, even for those of his own time.

Interpreters of this passage have found themselves in one of two camps when deciding what relevance this passage has for the church today. On the one hand, there are those who see this passage as having relevance for churches in Paul’s day (though perhaps not all churches in Paul’s day) and either no relevance for today or a modified relevance for today. Those in this camp include Christian feminists who see absolutely nothing in this passage to speak to the church today, as well as traditionalists who see an abiding principle of headship and submission but no binding custom of head coverings for women. In the other camp are those who see not only headship of men and submission of women, but also a command from Paul that head coverings for women are to be a custom of church practice throughout the ages.

Concerning the position of those in the first camp, it is unwise to explain away NT commands using the guise of cultural relativity. Cultural relativity is a very dubious principle upon which to operate. It can, in fact, be used to dismiss any or every part of the NT. Needless to say, we can’t have that!

But even if one wanted to make an exception to the rule that commands in Scripture cannot be considered culturally relative, there still is no basis for doing so in this passage. There is absolutely nothing in this passage to suggest that Paul sees a cultural limitation to his injunction about head coverings. On the contrary, every reason Paul gives for his injunction is arguably timeless and universal in scope. His reasons include the chain of headship (God-Christ-man-woman, v 3), the priority of creation (vv 8-9), the angels (v 10), and nature itself (v 14). None of these things is temporary or culturally limited, but rather timeless, and indicate that Paul’s injunction must be seen as timeless. Moreover, Paul calls this practice a “custom” of the church (v 16), and a “tradition” which he has handed down and to which he expects churches to hold (v 2).

Those of the second camp (i.e., those who see head coverings as a binding church practice) obviously enjoy the luxury of being able to argue the previous points. They also have the advantage of taking Paul’s words at face value and can apply the passage without compromising hermeneutic integrity. Theirs is the stronger position based upon the preponderance of evidence. However, four or five points of grammar in this passage force a look at a third position.

Before positing the third position it will be necessary to look at several key elements of Paul’s argument in this passage. First, it is notable that Paul takes one tone from vv 3-10, but from vv 11-16 takes quite another tone. Verse 11 seems to be the pivot point of the two tones. The key phrase in v 11 is “In the Lord, however.” In the passage immediately preceding this phrase Paul makes several observations that, after v 11, he seems to balance. For instance, in vv 8-9 Paul seems to be arguing that man is completely independent of woman and, indeed, that woman is completely dependent on man (“for man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man”). Paul’s point seems to be two-fold: 1) man does not rely upon woman for his existence, and 2) woman does rely upon man for her existence, and, indeed, her existence is for the very purpose of benefiting man.

Yet, beginning with v 11, Paul seems to add balance to what he said in vv 8-9. Paul argues in v 11 that, yes, while it is true woman is not independent of man, “in the Lord” neither is “man independent of woman.” The statement in vv 8-9 is true in itself, but does not go quite far enough. Man and woman are interdependent; neither one can claim independence. Paul expands upon this in v 12. In essence he says, yes, it is true that woman was made from man, but “also the man is born of the woman”–hence, interdependence, and hence, vv 8-9 are balanced by vv 11-12.

One last balance seems to be between v 7 and v 12. In v 7 Paul seems to argue that man was made in the image of God but woman was not. Instead, she was made in the image of man. The phrase “image and glory” is what is technically referred to as a hendiadys (lit., “one through two”) and means simply that Paul uses two words to refer to one thing. So, when he says that man was created in the “image and glory of God” and that woman was created in the “glory of man,” he means the same thing in both instances (Paul uses only one word, “glory,” in the second phrase to represent the entire phrase “image and glory”). However, the idea that woman was made in the image of man (not untrue in itself, but misrepresentative of the fact that both man and woman were made in the image of God–see Ge 1:27) is balanced in v 12: “But everything comes from God.” If v 9 makes the point that woman has her source in man, v 12 places it in proper perspective by pointing out that “everything” (i.e., both man and woman) has it’s source in God.

So, why does Paul make statements in vv 7-10 that he later must balance in vv 11-12? Before answering this question it will be necessary to reconstruct the occasion of Paul’s response in this section of his letter. The best starting point is in v 16. There Paul gives us a clue as to what is going on. He says, “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.” It seems relatively clear from Paul’s words that someone (or, perhaps more likely, some group) was insisting that the church take a specific position on women’s head coverings. Most standard translations (including the NASB and the NIV) render Paul as saying, “we have no other practice. This would indicate that the “contentious” group was insisting that women should not wear head coverings. Paul then would be correcting this group by appealing to a universal church custom of head coverings for women. What is so surprising (and what is the very thing that caused me to rethink this passage) is that the Greek word translated “other” in v 16 (toioutos) never means “other” anywhere else; and, in fact, means only “such” (“we have no such custom”). Needless to say, this drastically changes the meaning of Paul’s words. If Paul is saying “we have no such custom of women wearing head coverings,” then obviously the “contentious” group was insisting that women should wear head coverings.

Moreover, when viewed this way, it becomes increasingly clear why Paul would make several points before v 11 only to counter them after v 11. It also explains why at the beginning of this passage Paul praises the Corinthians for not giving in to the pressure of the contentious group but, instead, for “holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you” (v 2).

Based upon this information we may assume the following to be true of the Corinthian situation. The “contentious” group had been trying to get the rest of the Corinthians to adopt a custom of women covering their heads with some kind of garment when praying or prophesying. The Corinthians, uncertain as to what to do in this situation, include a section about this teaching in a general letter which they wrote to Paul (see 7:1 for evidence of this letter). In the letter they may have said something to this effect: “There are some Christians who have come to us and told us that we are supposed to have our women wear head garments during the meeting. We don’t recall you saying anything about this. So far we have not changed the way we have been doing things, but we would like to get your thoughts on this teaching.” To which Paul replies, “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you.” In other words, “I praise you for not changing the way I taught you to do things, especially in light of the fact that you were under pressure by this group to modify your meetings.”

Paul then begins to outline in vv 3-10 the building blocks upon which those in the “contentious” group have built their teaching that women need to wear garments as head coverings. The important thing to remember here is that Paul does not disagree with the building blocks used by those in the “contentious” group to develop their theology of garments as head coverings. On the contrary, he agrees that a woman does indeed need a head covering when praying or prophesying. Everything that Paul says through v 10 is something that Paul firmly believes. He believes that woman was created in the image of man; he believes that woman is dependent on man and that man was created independent on woman–he believes all of this to be true. But he does not believe it to be the whole truth. Yes, woman was, in a sense, created in the image of man (v 7) (it was from Adam that Eve was created), but ultimately she, too, was created in the image of God (v 12). Yes, woman is dependent upon man for her initial existence (v 9), but so is man dependent upon woman for his further existence (vv 11-12).

So, while Paul does not disagree with the theological foundation of those in the “contentious” group, neither does he think they have gone far enough in building their theology. At best they have a lopsided view of a woman’s status before God. Likewise, Paul does not disagree that, on the basis of male headship, women should have a “covering” on their heads when praying or prophesying. His disagreement is with the application of this principle (i.e., the type of covering).

All through this passage (vv 3-10) Paul has been insisting that a woman must have a “covering” on her head. The Greek word he uses here is katakaluptos. Here he is in agreement with those of the “contentious” group. They, too, have been insisting that a woman have a covering on her head. But then Paul shifts his tone in v 11: “In the Lord, however,” and from that point on begins to explain how this principle correctly applies to the church.

In vv 13-14 Paul asks the Corinthians two questions: 1) “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”; 2) “Does not the very nature of things teach you that . . . if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” The two questions are to be answered as a set. The second question is intended to buttress the first. In other words, by answering the second question first, the answer to the first question should then be obvious. A wise sales manager might ask his sales team: “Is an increased sales effort something that we want to do away with” and then buttress that with: “Don’t we want to see an increase in our bonuses next month?” By answering the second question first (yes, we do want to see an increase in bonuses), the answer to the first question then becomes obvious (no, an increased sales effort is not something that we want to do away with).

Paul uses the same reasoning here. To answer the second question first: yes, a woman’s long hair is her glory (that is, it keeps her from the “shame” of being uncovered). This makes the answer to the first question obvious: no, it is not proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.

But here Paul is thinking about a specific kind of covering. Up until this verse Paul has consistently used the word katakaluptos (“covering”) to insist that a woman be covered while praying or prophesying. Paul agrees with the contentious group that a woman does need a covering. What he disagrees with is their application. The contentious group insisted that the covering be a garment (a veil or shawl), whereas Paul is arguing that, in the case of the church (“In the Lord, however,” v 11), the covering is the woman’s own hair. Long hair, Paul argues, is the glory of a woman (v 15). he further argues this point in the very next phrase: “For, long hair is given to her as a covering.” The word “as” here is anti, and means literally “instead of.” The word for “covering” in this verse is not the same as has been used by Paul up to this point. Everywhere else in this passage Paul has used katakaluptos, which is a very generic term for “covering.” Here Paul uses the word peribolaios, which means literally “that which is wrapped around [the head].”

In other words, Paul is saying that, yes, women do need coverings (katakaluptos) on their heads when praying or prophesying. But, “in the Lord” that covering is not a peribolaios (cloth wrapped around the head) but rather the woman’s own long hair. In fact, “in the Lord” (i.e., in the church), long hair is given to a woman “instead of” (not “as”) “that which is wrapped around the head.” Women in the church have a ready-made covering and are therefore not necessarily in violation of the principles expressed in vv 3-10. Overall then, 1 Co 11:2-16 is a very liberating passage. In it, women are freed from the bondage of wearing religious head garb.

On which side of this issue do I then fall? In practice I do not at all differ from those who see this passage as culturally relative and who therefore do not practice garment head coverings for women. Hermeneutically, I am more closely allied with those who see no cultural relativity in this passage and who believe Paul is here laying down a custom for the church of all ages and cultures. Although I disagree with it regarding the exegesis of this passage, this view is far more faithful to Paul’s intent than is the former view. Still, neither view seems to grapple with the literary structure of this passage (the point/counterpoint dialogue that pivots around v 11) or the points of grammar brought up in this chapter (the use of anti [“instead of”] in v 15, and the use of toioutos [“such”] in v 16). My reconstruction, though admittedly not without its own inherent weaknesses, goes much farther in unraveling a difficult passage about which there is much dispute. I hope that it will be of help to those who seek to follow apostolic tradition.

Dwell in peace in brothers and sisters,
Pilgrim

decided to cancel this post.

Later: Since the moderators don't want us to overedit and especially not leave blank posts I am back to try to reconstruct what I deleted here.

I was responding to the long quote pilgrim put up by Eric Svendsen and said it threw a monkey wrench into the discussion [added now: because it's a brand-new way of coming at it late on the thread and complex enough to require more thought than we should be asked to put into it at this point]. I also said it struck me as sophistry but that I probably needed to cool down and reread it before coming to a definite conclusion.

I don't remember the rest right now. If I remember it I hope it's OK to come back and add it.

Maybe I don't know when to quit or maybe I just can't give up hope of getting us on the same page on at least some side issues, so I *have* to comment here:

>>>> We all like what we like because that is all we know. Even if the way we make it is not right, nothing will change it unless shown a different way and since tradition is difficult to break, the spirit of grace is absolutely a must

The exact meaning of that 'something' over or down from one's head that Paul talked about in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is among those that we can at best, only speculate.

In 1Cor 11:4 the phrase "having his head covered",
is "kata kephales echon" in greek, which literally means “having (something) down from head”. 'Kata' not 'epi' like the word used of the woman in verse 10 “on her head”.

The word veil or a piece of clothing is not mentioned except in 1 Cor 11:15, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering(peribolaion).

The 'relatively longer hair view' would resolve the contradiction to that which was normal among the jews where the priests prayed with something on their heads.

On the other hand, this view will have difficulty in giving meaning to 1 Cor 11:6, although their proponents do not see it that way.

Dr. James B. Hurley has excellent explanation in favor of the 'long hair view' in the following materials:

1. Veiling customs...& Head coverings...from his book,
'Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective'

2. Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of I Cor. 11:2-16 and I Cor. 14:33b-36, Westminster Theological Journal.

For the other view, Andrew Perry had a scholarly analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in his book, Head-Covering & Creation.

James Burton Coffman commentary also favors the 'long hair view.

The glory departed from the American church and the angel of the Lord scrawled "Ichabod" above the door because ladies stopped wearing fruit basket hats to church. The kingdom of heaven was overthrown by a fashion trend. This thread is the Key to Revival in the last days. Where centuries of revival preaching have failed, this thread will succeed.

So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature…

This is an excellent example of how to preach the gospel, brethren: lay down the dogma in language so fanciful, unrealistic and implausible that your listeners are forced to commit sacrificium intellectus, to the glory of God.

PrimaDogma Wrote:

by PrimaDogma on 2012/2/12 2:07:35

The glory departed from the American church and the angel of the Lord scrawled "Ichabod" above the door because ladies stopped wearing fruit basket hats to church. The kingdom of heaven was overthrown by a fashion trend. This thread is the Key to Revival in the last days. Where centuries of revival preaching have failed, this thread will succeed.

_____________________

I know some consider your attempts at humor funny but for those who are new to this forum the way you are mocking their beliefs on this matter is not very loving or Christ like. I do not think that belittling those who hold to this understanding of these passages is productive and it does not show the love we as followers of CHRIST are called to have for one another.

Not all sarcasm is funny or appropriate.
mary

maryjane,

The phrase "attempts at humor" implies the possibility of failure. But how can a religious satirist miss when he targets people who believe that God is wringing His Hands over fruit basket hats and Easter bonnets?

But in light of my recent string of failed efforts to kill silly threads, I have to wonder: am I losing my comedic edge? Or have the Forces of Righteousness become more humorless? Probably the latter.

Consider the first paragraph on this thread: John Calvin prophesies that if women are allowed to remove their head coverings, it is just a matter of time before they throw aside their blouses and attend church topless.

And nobody laughs.

when the Holy Spirit fell on the streets of Detroit several years ago almost all of the sisters were lead to cover their heads with a cloth, and few to none of them grew up in a tradition that taught a cloth covering either.

As Pope of Michigan I must dismiss this revival as spurious because it didn't revolve around Me. Why would Providence bypass the Perfect Ministry and send renewal to a bunch of holy rollers who do not acknowledge my Papal Authority?

But if head coverings are the price of revival, I myself will exchange my Pontifical Miter for a fruit basket hat.

PrimaDogma, you finally show up?!?!

You must have been very busy overseeing all the laity.
I know how your duties must keep you very busy.

Well, better late than never.

I almost put out an all points bulletin for jimp to stand in for you.

by PrimaDogma on 2012/2/12 6:47:52

maryjane,

The phrase "attempts at humor" implies the possibility of failure. But how can a religious satirist miss when he targets people who believe that God is wringing His Hands over fruit basket hats and Easter bonnets?

But in light of my recent string of failed efforts to kill silly threads, I have to wonder: am I losing my comedic edge? Or have the Forces of Righteousness become more humorless? Probably the latter.

Consider the first paragraph on this thread: John Calvin prophesies that if women are allowed to remove their head coverings, it is just a matter of time before they throw aside their blouses and attend church topless.

And nobody laughs.

______________

To you its silly but to Lisa and CJeanne and even myself(although I do not wear the cover) this is not a silly thread. These ladies have spent many hours searching the scripture and prayer because the desire of their heart is to follow JESUS. Their love for HIM and their willingness to submit to HIM in what HE is showing them is not something to be made fun of. You may think it silly but who are any of us to laugh at these sister who are seeking to lay down their life and serve the LORD. For them this is not about fruit baskets or bonnets, its about "loving and obeying" JESUS.

Your right I am not laughing, actually I feel like weeping because comments like this reflect the world and not the Bride.

Please consider prayerfully
God Bless
mary

It was street ministry to skidrow called the Jonah project....

Check out them out at this website

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jyct-bRbWo

Well worth watching but can't see any headcoverings though.....

Patrick used to be a member on SI....

Watchman nee's Quote:- In this day of ignorance concerning God’s authority, God only requires the church to observe this. The matter of head covering now becomes a question of whether or not one is a Christian.

Nee is saying that the matter of headcovering now becomes a question whether or not one is a Christian....

Nee's remark is a million miles away from the gospel message.

To name what spirit that is operating behind this doctrine of head covering it is called "witchcraft". Witchcraft is to exercise control over others.

----------------------------

Edited to add this

Pastor Patrick Ersig was born in 1970 and has a wife and three children. Patrick was saved by the grace of God from a life of drugs, violence and alcohol. After surrendering his life to the Lord, Patrick always had a burden to help those who were in the same bondage that he had been held in for many years.

In the spring of 2005, the Lord called Pastor Patrick to mission work in the inner-city streets, parks and projects of Detroit, Michigan. Since then, Patrick, his wife Mary, and three children have been working with the homeless, gangs, prostitutes, drug addicts and drug dealers in some of the worst ghettos of America,

including Cass Corridor in Detroit, MI and Skid Row in Los Angeles, CA.

To name what spirit that is operating behind this doctrine of head covering it is called "witchcraft". Witchcraft is to exercise control over others.

Brother. A word of caution. Tread very carefully in what you may "think" is a spirit not of the Lord, lest you fall into the camp of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Brother, check your heart on this. I am not a man of the cloth (head covering at least), but I can see and understand why some of our sisters wear it.

Just thinking…
I don’t have a problem with a lady who truly loves God and wears an artificial head covering. I wouldn’t try to make her feel down at all, believing that she is worshipping the Lord with that understanding. I also wouldn’t try to make a woman feel like she is being disobedient who worships the Lord without an artificial head covering. I would speak up for any woman of God who is being criticized for wearing an artificial head covering. At the same time I would speak up for any woman of God who is being told that she must wear an artificial covering or she is not being obedient in her worship of God.

I cannot be a part of any teaching that forces people to do something that so many people have a hard time understanding what is exactly being said. I really don’t think the Lord is going to hold something against us that we really are not sure about. I believe that if we would spend more time on those things that are clearly understandable in the word of God, and then we would be miles ahead in obeying the Lord, than in spending so much time trying to get people to do those things that are not clearly understood.

Blessings to all!

Sarcasm is the lowest form of witness.

This is not sarcasm, this is the Thunders of Absolute Intellect gathering over your devoted head!

Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean, for ironic effect. I am not joking when I express my willingness to wear a cornucopia on my head.

If the modern church were displaying Divine Reality - love, joy, peace, unity, power, spiritual gifts, healing, miracles - women would be happy to go along with head coverings, silence in church and other oddities just to be a part of what God is doing. But for the church in its present condition to require head coverings is like White Castle imposing a black tie dress code.

Pilgrim777

I missed your post earlier.

jimp? Mention him not! He committed the unpardonable effrontery when he invited me to come to Louisiana to serve as his Vice Pope. The man has no conception of My Importance. I am the HAL9000 of Dogma; jimp is a mere abacus. Vice Pope indeed! One day I will vanquish both him and the guy in Rome and wear the Triple Miter, My wife will wear the Triple Fruit Basket Hat.