Headcvering Q

I was just wondering if anyone here had wisdom on the women's headcovering issue.I cover my head sometimes, in prayer while I'm alone for instance.Maybe this topic has been covered already? (no pun intended)

I've been on the fence for quite some time on this issue. I didn't say it earlier, but I too have noticed or observed what you have Krispy, regarding women who cover.I know personally speaking, that when I do cover I feel and seem to act different (more humble, watch my thoughts closely, more in touch with the Holy Spirit?) and I do think that the Holy Spirit has been working on me about it. I know some people view it as a work or legalism, which indeed it is not IMO.Although, I suppose like everything else, it boils down to a persons motivation. Part of the reason I think I have not covered more, or in public view- is out of my own fear & pride... let's see if I can explain... I think I have been afraid of looking different or looking like I'm trying to be holier than thou or a weirdo, I don't even Jesus fish my car, out of FEAR I won't be a Godly example, (I think.)As far as covering as I'm personally led, if I'm convicted but I don't do it- then I'm out of God's will, right? Is my not covering a pride thing do you think? Afraid of looking different? But aren't we to be different? Set apart from the world?I desire to be obediant, more submissive and pleasing to my Lord and my husband. I desire to follow the Word closely and to draw nearer to Him. Always. FTR: I know the headcovering itself is just fabric, not magic. Any other wisdom, experience ideas? Leadings?

Denny Kenaston of Charity Ministries has a teaching on head covering that you may want to listen too, you can find it at the following link;Biblical Principles on the Headship VeilingIn Christ,Ron

The church of which I am part had always encouraged the men to uncover their heads! (oh, and has always encouraged the sisters to cover their heads) Did you notice that I am using the order that Paul used in 1 Cor 11? When you consider that all Jewish men covered their heads in worship, and a high priest was disqualified if he uncovered his head (Lev 21:10), surely we should be asking the question 'why did Paul go against generations of tradition and risk massive offence to the Jews by forbidding men to use a 'covering'?I differ in a good few points in my understanding from Denny Kenaston, but one of the main areas is the setting in which covering of heads is appropriate; Kenaston is saying that 'covering' should be the pattern at all times. I think the deep significance of the symbol has to do primarily with the church and its Head, and that 'covering' is really only appropriate in the setting of the 'whole church coming together'.A friend of mine wrote this booklet on the topic some years ago and I put it into a pdf document. It is worth reading; a sign of authority

Hi and thanks for the replies,Real quick to clarify: Actually I meant possible pride (by NOT covering, not by covering) I didn't explain myself too well. Sort of like, I'm caring too much how I look (maybe I want to be - on some level-fashionable/cool/stylish/attractive?) with my hair & head uncovered. And the pride part is of caring what people think before or over what God thinks.Because if I wear a headcovering publicly = people notice, might "think" I'm dressing odd, or have odd beliefs, or that I'm acting like I think I'm holier- or that I want to be like the local Amish, maybe putting on a show (which I do not- would not be- by the way, lol.)I don't want to put what people think, and my fear of not fitting in or looking out of place, to come before what God wants me to do, and what He thinks.As it is my hair draws some attention, if I don't keep it up.Thank you so much for the responses, and for the link. I'm having trouble downloading anything right now, but I look forward to looking into some of the downloads and such soon. :-D KrispyKrittr wrote:

I know personally speaking, that when I do cover I feel and seem to act different (more humble, watch my thoughts closely, more in touch with the Holy Spirit?) and I do think that the Holy Spirit has been working on me about it. I know some people view it as a work or legalism, which indeed it is not IMO.Well... faith leads to good works in Christ. So yea, it is a work sorta thing, but not unto salvation. Instead it may be a result of salvation. (i.e. obedience)As to whether you're struggling with pride, thats something only the Holy Spirit can show you.If it does become a source of pride, then you would need to stop, at least in public. Thats why I dont like to pray in group settings... I can sense my pride rising up... "they probably think I'm quite spiritual cuz I pray so well...". That kind of thing.Krispy

I'm impressed by your desire to serve God fully. I enjoyed reading your posts. As far as 1 Cor. 11 goes, I'm convinced it's referring to a covering (material) besides the hair. How that applies to our culture today - still undecided on that one.

Ron , you speak at alot of different churches. How do you handle it when this subject or question is brought up to you almost as if the local pastor wants you to take sides on this issue covering or not for women?

As it is my hair draws some attention, if I don't keep it up.That's one of the reasons behind 'covering'! ;-)

Ron , you speak at alot of different churches. How do you handle it when this subject or question is brought up to you almost as if the local pastor wants you to take sides on this issue covering or not for women?I try to handle in more privately, if it is raised. I have never raised the topic but I am a fairly free spirit (I prefer cords and open necked shirt to suits) and folks are often surprised when they realise that the church of which I am part encourages uncovering/covering. They have it in mind that such gatherings must be very formal. Our own church meetings are all 'open', without order of service or named preachers, other than visiting preachers.I try to talk to pastors/elders privately on contentious or controversial issues. When I am in another church I consciously place myself and whatever I may have at the disposal of the eldership in that place. I think of Paul and Barnabas putting their 'gifts' in the elders' hands. (Acts 11:30) I function on this website in the same spirit. I feel it is the eldership that will have to give an account for their souls. Some of the meetings I preach in are not gathering of the 'church' as seen in 1 Corinthians. A teaching seminar, an evangelistic rally... these are not the gathered church.I re-read the link document that I posted on 'a sign of authority' last night and feel that the man has the measure of this whole issue very clearly. For G W North and myself the 'ordinance' is a church ordinance and not a general instruction for life-style. I was surprised at how much my own thoughts had paralled his in many areas. I note that the Denny Kenaston audio file that Ron referred to mentioned the 'covering of the glory' briefly but did not develop it. My thoughts would be that this is the main significance of the ordinance.In Christ, God's glory is unveiled. In the church, God's glory is veiled; it doth not yet appear... The woman represents the whole church, and her glory is consciously veiled at this time. The man represents the Man, and He is gloriously re-veal-ed and not to be covered. If you haven't had time to read the pdf, I really would recommend it. There is no legalism in it, but some profound thoughts.If you don't have time to read that there is a 3 page leaflet, by an Englishman living in Vancouver, which introduces the topic well called Concerning Head-covering - Chauvinism or Commandment?

I try to handle in more privately, if it is raised. I have never raised the topic but I am a fairly free spirit (I prefer cords and open necked shirt to suits) and folks are often surprised when they realise that the church of which I am part encourages uncovering/covering. They have it in mind that such gatherings must be very formalThere is a lot of ignorance of this topic in many Christian churches here in the US. Actually, there is an increasing tendency to gather in a more casual dress all together. It is not uncommon to see women wear jeans to church in ways that would have made my great grandmother cringe. I was in a service once in which a woman was teaching on finding a marriage partner. I made the mistake of saying that it would have been awesome to have known what it was like to have a relationship with our spouses as Abraham and Sarah - who referred to Abraham as 'lord.' That went over like a lead balloon and is still a sticking point some 4 or 5 years later. Occasionally the issue comes up and invariably it gets blown off by saying, "Well, we don't know how she called him that." And then a few derogatory scenerios depecting her using the word disrespectfully are given. In this I am pointing out that there is a serious lapse in these concepts of headship that need to be recovered. Any ideas where to begin?God Bless,-RObert

I think what a lot of this issue is going to boil down to is pride, and you really have to boil it down to get that far. The world is NOT going to want to see it that way or admit to it but there it (usually) is.What are we talking about here, whether or not you wear a veil covering on your head when you pray or prophesy as a woman? Well rather than a simple piece of cloth, you'd think we were talking about physically violating a woman the way some of them take offense!"Don't you tell ME what to do" is the attitude du century, be it something frakly small like a head covering, or farily large and significant like being in submission to ones husband.Now whether or not head coverings are actual coverings or the hair of a woman is a matter for debate that I'm not sure on myself, but more importantly I ask, "is it such a big thing" to just put one on if that's the way your church leans or the Spirit leads?Really? Is it SUCH A BIG DEAL??And what are the benefits of such? Well for one, I can pretty much guarantee a spirit of humility which is something Christ loves to see in all of us. No woman will be able to take that veil and put it on her head without feeling a sense of coming down before her Lord and Savior which is what we should ALL have, men and women alike.But instead what is it a matter of? Pride. "Why should I have to do it when HE doesn't?"I liked the comment someone made to their group about how nice it'd be if we could discover the kind of relationship Abraham and Sarah had. The marriages of that day had a solidity I fear we in this day and age can not POSSIBLY know. It's a shame that such a statement could be received so poorly and why is that?"Only by pride cometh contention."We live in a terribly Godless age where men will not be men with their families and the women are only too happy to step up and take that role they were not designed for. Men too full of themselves to step up to their responsibilities and women likewise full doing what they ought not. Lord give us more women who will simply say "A veil? Sounds like no big deal... why not?"

Lord give us more women who will simply say "A veil? Sounds like no big deal... why not?"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. (Psa 40:7-8 KJV)spot the difference? ;-)

It's between you and God, I'm just saying that we need to do a "motivation" check.)I heard a message once in which the minister said he believed that Absalom's long hair was the symbol of his rebellion; I know that is not true for all men who let their hair grow out, etc., but I do agree that we need to check our motives. Many things are done to make a statement. Sometimes they are quite innocent. Sometimes they are a symbol of rebellion. Anytime a person comes into the house of God with the intention of being 'seen' of men (or women) they are effectively dividing the worship (that is not original). We should always be quite careful to not do that. This is why I sometimes have a hard time 'dressing up.' I went in a local men's store and walked out because everything I saw it seemed was designed to gain attention or complements. Maybe I was too sensitive. But when God is trying to send revival we may do well to dress in sackloth. As for the earlier comment on headship Iw as not intending to spark a secondary debate of the role of women, I was merely touching on the situation to give a context for making changes. God Bless,-Robert

But when God is trying to send revival we may do well to dress in sackloth.PREACH IT!! :-D

Robert wrote: Any ideas where to begin?Well for starters, I would never 'defend' coverning, but would declare it with joy. I am very tempted to regard it as an ordinance on a par with Baptism and The Lord's Supper. Like them it is a powerful and beautiful symbol. When a woman is covered in the gathered church it is symbolic of the whole church being 'covered'; not yet revealed in her true glory. It is a way of saying 'Don't look at the church's glory'. The 'uncovered man' is symbolic of the Man being revealed, and says 'Look at the Man, Look at the Man'. The woman's covering is symbolic of the whole church including the male; in the woman's covering I am hidden too. When I glance around the gathering and see the coverings it is a powerful reminder of whose church it is, and who is to be revealed here... not the men, certainly not the preacher, but the Man. It tells me I am safe while I am covered, and in this my sisters are serving me. In very many ways the real question is the other half of the command. Greeks were indifferent, as regards both men and women, to covering in worship. Neither covered their heads. The Roman priests diligently covered their heads. Their is a very famous statue of the emperor Augustus in the role of Pontefex Maximus, Rome's High Priest: he is veiled. Rome's Pontifex Maximus is still covered. Jewish priests were disqualified if they uncovered their heads (Lev 21:10) Why would Paul risk offending all these groups in one stroke by saying that the woman should wear a covering and the man should not?The answer has to be that something has changed. In previous times God had always been 'veiled', but in Christ the veil is removed and God is seen in human-ness in all His glory. To re-cover the man would be a tacit denial of the incarnation, when we beheld His glory...There is an underlying theme of authority running through 1 Corinthians. The saints were living their lives under the authority of their personal choices and rights; each one says 'I'. This is why Paul speaks about the cross in the life of the saint; the end of my right to myself. My life is no longer my own it is under the authority of another. The gathered church is to reveal this truth; it is His church, and His alone. It is not my opinion but His authority that is to shine there. In the church I have no rights to personal expression or opinion; it is His church. The church does not exist as a stage for my personal revelation or self-expression, look at me, look at me. Seen in its right perspective and without ostentation, the covered sister is a steady reminder of all this. I am constantly grateful to them.

My church practises head-covering during meetings. Our teaching is based on this article by Watchman Nee: Head-Covering.From Watchman Nee's point of view, there are four spiritual symbols/ordinances in the Christian Church: Lord's Supper, Baptism, Head-covering, Laying on of hands.

My church practises head-covering during meetings. Our teaching is based on this article by Watchman Nee:SamThis very interesting. Although I would differ in some aspects I very much like his emphasis on the personal and the representative. I still think that the woman is representative of the whole church, but that would not exclude her being the representative of all creation too, as the church is the new beginning.I have a few friends that I am going to pass in on to.

Hi Bro. Ron,3 things stand out to me in your post:Well for starters, I would never 'defend' coverning, but would declare it with joy.Thats a awesome concept: declare it with joy. I think I can glean much from that. Declaring truth with joy! I have tried to communicate that way in the past- yet have been misunderstood greatly. So it was with my statement about Abraham and Sarah. I was not trying to exalt myself or put my foot on a womans neck and beg worship; I was seeing with joy the very depth of the relationship they had together. The church does not exist as a stage for my personal revelation or self-expression, look at me, look at me.I wonder if there is a way to make the distinction between having a zeal to share and feeling like your wanting a 'stage' for yourself? It is well worth pondering.Seen in its right perspective and without ostentation, the covered sister is a steady reminder of all this. I am constantly grateful to them.Amen. God Bless,-Robert

Thank you. I asked because I've felt at times placed in the middle some what like some sort of referee or judge . I generally steer as far away from thoughs subjects as possible. I down loaded that pdf file "sign of authority" and will read it tonight.I'll let ya know what I thought. Thanks again.

In the Church of God there is a vast mix on this issue. They came out of the holiness movement around the 1900's and from the Southern Baptist denomination.There still seems to be pockets of old line traditions which are in place but some of the churches are breaking out into different directions and dress and head coverings have been a hot topic especially in the South.In the north most churches don't use head covering anymore.But I minister at several different denominations beside my own. Personally I've never felt to comfortable addressing headcoverings and have been in some difficult situations , not of my own making , in others trying to make me take sides.

Personally I believe most Christian women today need to learn about that topic before they get caught up in the head covering issue.Say on. The worship is divided- we need to bring singularity to that. Make God be the center of focus and then we move on from there. We must not go to the house of God to be exalted. We must not come to be worshipped and adored. God help us!

Styles of dress and head coverings vary... I think a more important issue facing a lot of women in the church is MODESTY. Personally I believe most Christian women today need to learn about that topic before they get caught up in the head covering issue.I think these things are connected rather than competitors.

I enjoyed all of the perspectives here, it looks as if we all agree that covering is good when based on a pure motivation.Krispy you make a really good point there about modesty first, and it is something that I think we all see is seriously lacking in much of the church today. The clothes- or lack thereof, are just amazing. The scriptures tell us married folks not to try to attract the opposite sex, or bring attention to our bodies, yet most clothing is designed to do exactly that, and I see the church going along with the world a great deal in the way we dress.I was just reading in 1 Timothy again this morning about that very thing. Sisters: I see from the Greek the word modesty is translated from aidos; bashfulness, (towards men) and most importantly an awe/reverence before God. The word for discreet there, if I understand correctly is a "voluntary limitation to one's freedom of thought and behavior" ... that is something to think aboutSpeaking to my sisters, (brothers feel free to correct me here if need be) I think the very best thing we women of God can do- inside and outside of the assembly, is to set a Godly example. Volunteer to be the trendsetters (for Godliness)I know I notice how my sisters behave and look- in the sense that I'm aware of their behavior and dress and I find that it often helps encourage me to follow suit. (We womem ALWAYS notice what other ladies are wearing, don't we? ;-))So, we can personally volunteer to dress the way that is pleasing to God and be the example, even if it means being a little different or not quite "fashionable" and just like with the headcovering it is a reminder to ourselves and to others of who we are and who we belong to.I appreciate all the input on this thread, it's been a wonderful discussion.

p.s, I wanted to add that one of the Greek words for the proper mode of dress for Godly women, if I recall correctly- was basically dressing plain, not flashy- in order to NOT bring attention to one's self. Like someone responded earlier. Covering the hair with a simple scarf, does in fact limit the amount of attention a womans hair gets. I know that my husband has often mentioned liking shorter hair looking nice on ladies, but I wonder now, since he likes me covering so well. If it wasn't more he associated a harlot like spirit with long hair and the obvious attention it brings. I have really long hair and he (and I) usually prefer it bunned up. I notice when I start fallng away/backsliding, my hair AND dress usually do as well. By the way; he liked long hair before we were married and he likes my hair for himself, but he doesn't care for it when I wear it down in public. So, I see if I cover my head with a scarf, it is an honor to my husband and to God, and a reminder to me as well.

Hi Bro Ron,I think these things are connected rather than competitors.Somehow I knew that was coming. ;-) They are definitely connected. Say, I read through the materials of both Watchman Nee and the article you suggested and found myself thinking that instead of looking at it as though the woman 'had' to wear a covering- it is more like she 'gets' to wear the covering. As if it is more of a priviledge. On the other hand I felt as though there was a need to 'veil' the glory of the woman (her hair) as it could challenge God and His glory if it were allowed to be 'on display.' The fact that shaving was to be done if covering was not done led Watchman Nee to say it would be a double transgression to leave both undone. My question, is what connection might be here to Ezekiel 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. The woman is to be covered "because of the angels." Is there a connection to these words for covering here?God Bless,-Robert

Darn you Krispy, I'm gonna hafta take that 'Lord's crumb and shot' remark to my grave now, :-P And my wife...and my sis-in-law...Just hope I can keep from cracking up the next time the shot glasses are passed 'round in our church.At any rate. Capital responses here. I love the way this board seems to be able to handle these discussions without overt emotion and perceived offense when their may be disagreement. It's the best online image of Christ(ian) gatherers I've seen yet!

pssst- The Lord's Supper vs. A Crumb and a shot, sounds like a great thread ;-)

Hi all,Heard an interesting interpretation on that whole thing in church the other day. I can't remember all the in and outs, so bear with me.The root cause of the problem at this time was disunity in the local church, and it seems that it was a clash of different cultures comming into the church, namely the Jews and the Greeks.For the Jews, men having long hair and wearing a hat was common practise. Also a woman was considered 'lose' in there culture if she did not have a head covering. The only time she could not have a head covering was if she had her head shaved, which meant that she was betrothed to a certain man. The connection here is to the ordinance in Deut or somewhere around there that captive woman who were taken as wives had to shave there head.FOr the Greeks a woman who had a shaved head indicated that she was a prostitute, hence Pauls solution to the whole thing just cover the head and avoid conflict all together. Which I think is the nature of any command written in the New Testament Italics my idea.As to the dishonouring side of things. If a believing Jewish woman sees the freedom of her Greek mates in the church and takes her head covering off, she dishonours her head, her husband by acting in certain way which to him may be seen as inappropriate for a Jewish woman.My personal convictions about this is precisely that, a personal conviction. I say that to say this, do not let what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.I would take great exception if I had to go to a church and they told my wife to wear a hat. That is not the gospel. On the other hand if I wanted to honour my host or the way they do things then I would certainlyl go along with it. Be free enough to let people live under grace, and not by just an outward observance of an apparent sanctified biblical modus operandi. To sum it all up: the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.If wearing a hat makes you feel more holy, wear the hat. If wearing a hat feels like you have an umbrella on your head so be it, but what ever you do, do it because you are fully convinced in your mind that it is the right way.

Wow! This is such an interesting thread! I love the honesty and openness...My mother wore a head-covering sometimes. She didn't grow up with it, but at some point decided it's what God wanted her to do. She didn't all the time. Usually when she was fasting or something--like a way of showing more respect and commitment or something. I think she would have more often, but she told me that sometimes she felt she was drawing the attention off of Christ and onto herself by wearing a covering rather than not. This was very true as we never attended a church where anyone but her covered.I also tend to believe that the woman's hair is her covering, just as Krispy said earlier. See the footnotes in the NIV Bible on the subject. I am somewhat muddled about it, though. I have enjoyed everyone's post's, especially Ron's about all the women covered in the church as a symbol of Who we belong too. Wow!This is one of those things that I tend to put in the "do not let it divide us" pile. Most spirit-filled churches in Africa believe in head-covering, so when I was there, I covered. The church I attend now does not, so I don't.I know that head-covering always bothered me on my mother. I was a teen-ager and to have any family member doing anything out of the ordinary was the end of the world. I know that the desire to be accepted by the world does not die easily. Is this still part of my aversion to headcovering? Probably...

Is this still part of my aversion to headcovering? Probably...It seems that the enemy has gone to great lengths to convince us as believers that the more we are like the world the more Christianity will be accepted. This is impossible. The reason is that the conscience of a sinner, when functioning rightly, will condemn compromise in Christians. Their impenatent heart may love compromise, but the conscience will condemn it. The one is at war with the other in the heart of the sinner. If we live as genuine Christians as much as in us is, we will make maximum impact. If we compromise we are deminishing our impact. In other words, we dim the light or deminish the savor of our salt. We must always remember it is impossible to please a sinner. What the heart loves the conscience condemns and what the conscience approves the heart hates. We need not seek to be aproved of the world; for when they approve of us it disproves the authenticity of our faith. This is summed up in knowing that all that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. Ravenhill asks, "How the world could not get along with the holiest man who ever lived and yet it can get along with you and me? Are we compromised? Are we of no Spiritual stature? have we no righteousness that reflects on their corruption?God Bless,-Robert

Sorry to narrow the thoughts to one unrelated item.RobertW, from the tone of your last post and also the comment by Finney, do you think that the conscience is a free moral agent? Is that the part that is able to relate to God without Gods iniation of contact? Is he the one that is a slave to sin which emminates from the heart? I presume that is the will.The conscience what is it, where does it come from, is it a someone or is it a amorphis force?

The root cause of the problem at this time was disunity in the local church, and it seems that it was a clash of different cultures comming into the church, namely the Jews and the Greeks.Hi zekeOthe flaw to this whole point are the words 'it seems'. This whole interpretation is based on a hypothesis for which there is no evidence. There is an interesting verse at the beginning of 1 Corinthians that it is easy to forget..To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: (1Co 1:2 NASB) This is one of the very few letters in the New Testament where the writer was consciously writing to an audience that was wider than the initial recipients of the letter.This is the only letter where we read about the practice of the Lord's Supper, and the manifestation of the Spirit in the meetings. We need to be very cautious in relegating Corinthians to the context of a 1st Century port with all its attendent immorality.In fact this is not the letter to the Corinthians at all! It is actually "the letter to the Corinthians with all who in every place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ". The words 'all' and 'every' mean than we cannot tie Paul's admonitions here to local conditions.

The conscience what is it, where does it come from, is it a someone or is it a amorphis force?We made a start of this once before...The Conscience and the Heart

philologos wrote:the flaw to this whole point are the words 'it seems'. Hello PHillo,Can't start your rebudtle on something that I said straight up was something I heard preached, I don't have the exact thought lines. So if my wording is not in neat clearly defined boxes. :-Pp.s. I am not offended, just tuning

We need to be very cautious in relegating Corinthians to the context of a 1st Century port with all its attendent immorality.Why is that?

philologos wrote:In fact this is not the letter to the Corinthians at all! It is actually "the letter to the Corinthians with all who in every place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ". The words 'all' and 'every' mean than we cannot tie Paul's admonitions here to local conditions.I agree, that the truths contained within the letter are for all over, but the context of who he was speaking to was Jews and Greeks in the port. The problem with head coverings and the like in my mind is far deeper than woman just wearing something over their head. There was a truth principle that Paul wanted us to grasp. From reading other parts of the New Testament it does not fit in with his position on the freedom of the gospel.

ZekeO wrote:

Ron wrote: We need to be very cautious in relegating Corinthians to the context of a 1st Century port with all its attendent immorality.Why is that?

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.Seems pretty clear to me.Watchman Nee deals with this by showing that the womans glory is her hair and that if she does not cover it it should be shaved. This is the basis of his position that non-conformity to this passage is a double disobedience. God Bless,-Robert

philologos wrote:If 1 Corinthians is only to be interpreted in a hypothetical Corinthian context we may as well remove it from the canon and relegate it to the history shelf.It is the exercise of someone creating imaginary scenarios and trying to find a best fit. This is eiso-gesis rather than exogesis. The former inserts ideas into the text, the latter draws ideas out of the text.I am actually quite amazed that someone who is as learned as you are would say that. :-? Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. 5When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.A 6But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." 7Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. In the church there was Jews and Greeks, so at that point we can scratch out hypothesis. To quote Gordon D Fee & Dougals Stuart:The believing scholar insists that the biblical texts first of all mean what they meant. That is, we believe that God's Word for us today is first of all precisely what his word was to them. Thus we have two tasks: First to find out what the text origianlly meant; this task is called Exegesis. Second, we must learn to hear that same meaning in the variety of new or different contexts of our own day; we call this second task hermeneutics. By the way Ron do you have Skype?

philologos wrote:Truth is either eternally relevant or eternally irrelevant.As I have said elsewhere truth is sometimes pretty clear cut in application, but in this situation, there is to many other references in Pauls writings to their being no male nor female etc, for him to suddenly through in something about woman covering their head. It is a 'truth' that is challenged elsewhere in the New Testament, so therefore is it really the 'truth' that God was wanting to get through to us.

RobertW wrote:Watchman Nee deals with this by showing that the womans glory is her hair and that if she does not cover it it should be shaved. For our day and age, why? In my culture that would seem odd. That would be the same as a muslim wearing his hat. God is far cleverer than to give us any opportunity to express our devotion to him by an outward physical sign that we are Christians. He knows us to well, we have a setting in us that wants to show that we are such and such a belief. Hindus have little red strings around there wrists, Indigeneous Africans have skin around their wrists. He made his requirements so high that he commanded our hands not even to know what we are doing.

Hi Zeke,I am new to this topic so I am merely communicating what others have said. i have not come to any real conclusion of what to do with it all, but I believe God will give an answer. The issue deals with events in the church service itself and not behavior outside of the church setting. I would encourage you to check out the two pdf files that are earlier in the thread. That's what I am going with so far.God Bless,-Robert

KrispyKrittr wrote:We can take any part of the Bible and say "that was written to such and such a people", and leave it at that. Thats how people justify women pastors.I hear what you saying but that is not what I am saying. It is about understanding what things meant to those people to whom it was originally written, why did he write such a thing. An example of this would be Jesus talking about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin and also poking your eye out. Seems pretty clear to me :-) How many of us would concede that he didn't literally mean cut your hand off, but rather be as radical as that with sin.

KrispyKrittr wrote:I'm just a redneck from North Carolina, USA... with my flannel shirt and pick-up truck.In my country the Afrikaaners call us English speaking rooineck which also means red-neck. I think it was when they first arrived and the African sun gave them a good burn. As the saying goes mad dogs and english men. :-?

ZekeO writes: In the church there was Jews and Greeks, so at that point we can scratch out hypothesis. I was not disputing the fact that there were Jews and Greeks in the same gathering. I am disputing the hypothesis that I Cor 11 is Paul's solution to a culture clash.As I said earlier it is the fact of the different backgrounds in the church at Corinth that make Paul's instructions so amazing. This would have resolved nothing if the problem had been a culture clash. This would have offended the Jewish men who always covered their heads in worship; the Romans whose men covered their heads in worship; and the Corinthian women who did NOT cover their heads in worship. Nice solution Paul! You have succeeded in offending everybody in the church! :-D By the way Ron do you have Skype? Not as far as I know, what are the symptoms? :-P

wow... we're talking to people from the UK and South Africa... this is cool.I'm just a redneck from North Carolina, USA... with my flannel shirt and pick-up truck.If you get up really early, or stay up really late, you'll get to talk to the Australian branch of the family too! I'm pretty much in the middle so I get the best of both. We'd like to be rednecks but mostly we just drip. :-P

As for my wife an I , we have always accepted the head covering when we'er in a church that uses them and haven't used them where the local church didn't.The articles you posted where very helpful and after I finish running a copy of them off on my printer I plan to travel with one copy of each in my brief case so I can just hand it out next time. Being put into the middle of some church tiffs isn't an enjoyable place to be.Thanks for the posts.

This is a side order… I am insatiably curious. For some years I taught in a small Bible school which always had a majority of students from overseas. As they witnessed the patterns of our church life, with many of the sisters covering their heads, the topic of head covering would inevitably arise at times. I have spent a good few hours with open bibles talking over these issues. I was particularly interested in Paul's comment that 'nature teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him'. I would often ask people from Asia, The Near and Far East, Africa, Europe, Scandinavia, the Americas (both) just what they thought about this statement. Did 'nature' in their culture teach them so? The responses were mixed. The Scandinavians, in particular, had no such feelings. The more simple the society the more likely that they did have a sense that there was something shameful about a man with long hair, but they were by no means unanimous about the concept.But how long is long? Have you seen pictures of Fox and Wesley and George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards? Just how long is long? It really needs some explanation even in Corinth itself as in ancient Greek times it was the custom for young men to wear their hair ‘long’. This continued in Sparta, and in Athens it was so worn by youths up to the 18th year, when they offered their long locks to some deity. To wear the hair ‘long’ was considered as a sign of aristocratic habits. The word came to mean ‘pluming’ or ‘preening’ oneself in the sense of someone giving themselves what we might now call ‘airs and graces’. In other words, studied fashion with the intention of displaying themselves.I began to dig a little more deeply into the significance of Paul's comment on 'long hair'. You will guess my surprise so discover that the word used by Paul does not primarily mean 'long'. It often included that characteristic but the length is not the primary issue in the meaning of this word. The word 'komE' designates the hair as an ornament. Komeo: is to tend or care for. It is used in the sense of someone consciously adorning themselves with affectation by ‘tending the hair’ as an adornment. I’m not sure we have a word which can describe this, but most people will have seen men who ‘made a thing’ of their hair.I began to feed this idea back into the foreign students; both brothers and sisters. They were unanimous that when a man ‘made a thing of his hair’ they were always uncomfortable with the idea. When I asked why, the answer was always the same; it is effeminate. This is the kind of thing that the woman might do but when a man did so it was not manly. For a man to be preoccupied with his hair was, to them all, a sign of effeminacy.Most readers here will be aware of the strict prohibition in the Old Testament against transvestite activity. A man might not wear woman’s clothing, and vice versa. The genders must remain distinguishable. This was the natural instinct of my foreign students too; the genders must remain distinguishable and ‘tended hair’ somehow began to breake down that distinction.Others have commented on the importance of the hair to the woman, and for those who want to dispute this I would simply say, ‘when was the last time you heard of a man coming back from the barbers in tears because his hair was ruined?’ (I rest my case! ;-) ) Most classic images of the woman as a beauty will have her with luxuriant hair. Nature teaches us. Even if as a result of sickness or personal constitution a woman’s hair is not her glory, most would choose it to be so if they were able. This is not the ‘natural’ instinct of the man. (I ought to have confessed earlier that for me this whole area is a study of ancient history. My hair used to have lots of waves, but in my 40’s it produced one final wave of ‘goodbye’ and hasn’t been seen since. My grandfather who lost his even earlier was in the habit of saying ‘you don’t get a lot of grass on a busy street’. ;-)) Nevertheless, even though this is a mere reminiscence on my part, I think it is broadly true that men are not preoccupied with their hair; it is not their glory. Why am I posting this? There is no fixed measure at which a man’ hair becomes ‘long’ and no special virtue in being a skinhead. The attention to hair is an indicator of male or female disposition. There is however a point at which a man’s hair becomes conspicuous and his preoccupation with it becomes inordinate; at that point it is ‘komE’ and nature is pretty much unanimous that it is not appropriate. It obscures the distinctions which are indicative of God’s natural order. Just a side order… take it or leave it. :-D

Just a side order… take it or leave it.Good post Bro. Ron. I often say I have been having a bad hair day for 20 years. Perhaps one day it will wave one last time also. :-PGod Bless,-Robert

Interesting, and insightful. Thanks Bro.

The things you can come across here...Not even sure now what I was looking for...?O, yes, 'dying words of the saints'.Another reminder to 'mine' the depths here! Use the search tool, do a random 'einy, meeny, miney, mo' and click on something buried in the forum. Try a mysterious "Re:" there's thousands of them!Anyway, being that 'I are one of them' this caught my attention!Thanks Ron for the study, also there is something to be said of the Nazerite vow, Samson, amongst all this. All my favorite places to make reference to when the challenge is presented. Had long suspected that there had to be a better explanation to Paul's comments and figured that had to be where he was leaning. Have had this mop for many years and started probably close to about the fourth grade to have a bit longer than most, much to my fathers chagrin, but mom won out as it seemed to her to look better that way. Later on it was surely emphasized more being a musician and the now long lost career path of "Rock Star". Have seen the fads come and go and been unmercifully harassed through the years, 'hippie'... the heads turning, staring, even the embarrassing and humiliating time I was on a blind date (thoroughly pagan then) sitting with this rather good looking nurse in a club when some guy walked up and asked me to dance! :-? Talk about your 'predicament'! Fortunately the lights were quite a bit dark and it dawned on him as his eye's adjusted and he was probably more embarrassed than I was... apologizing profusely.Also makes a perfect illustration here, certainly some 'over preening' and, yeah those were the days of the infamous "Hair Bands"... a bit too much.But all that is to say that I really disliked the attention other than the ladies of course backthen and that it just makes more sense on this strange head than with a crew cut. You bet I am thankful that it's still attached :-) But in the long run, it doesn't really matter, it just is what it is.Roberts comments reminded me of an old Rod Stewart lyric that often would echo through the brain early in the morning;"I comb my hair a thousand different ways, and comes out looking just the same"And about those barbers and tears....You would be surprised! :-P

What a great topic.Can anyone really say what Paul meant espcially when he says at the close " if any man seems contentious we have no such custon neither the church of God" so why do we have to have a customised approach?Just a thoughtPaul

PaulCan anyone really say what Paul meant espcially when he says at the close " if any man seems contentious we have no such custon neither the church of God" so why do we have to have a customised approach?This is the kind of conclusion that is crystal clear if you have already made your mind up! Those who interpret the passage as being unique to Corinth interpret this part as Paul saying 'it's not a big issue!' Those who interpret Paul's words as having universal application through all the churches conclude that he is saying the church at Corinth will be the odd one out if it does not insist upon the women covering their heads.Your 'why have a customised approach' is a good question. Why should Paul have risked the offence of each group at Corinth unless there was something which warranted the risk? The ancient commentators on this verse all concluded that Paul was for universal usage of the woman being covered. I think the natural sense is that we have no such custom of the women being uncovered in the gathered church.

philologos:"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God." (1 Cor. 11:16) I understand your point on this verse. Those who argue for universal application of headcovering would interpret it as: women in other churches practise headcovering, and you should too."For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." (1 Cor 14:33-34)Now question is, how do you handle 1 Cor 14:33-34? Would you apply the same logic to argue that women should be silent in public worship?I have seen some approach this by changing the punctuation around, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Women should..." Would this be the way you handle this text?

You know, i just happened to run this topic by my daughter (15) who is the most Christ-like girl of her age I have ever seen. She makes me ashamed sometimes of my own lack of faith. She has a very personal and intimate relationship with the Lord. (if you read her journals... :)She would do anything right now to be in Asia as a servant for the Lord. And she is so vocal about her faith in her public highschool.She likes to keep things simple, as a child would. and encourages me to do the same.when i brought this topic up about headcovering. she just looked at me and said so matter of factly. 'Well, Mom, i think God's going to use me whether I wear a head covering or not. He has His plans already layed out for me, and I don't see a headcovering in those plans." and then she laughed and it really made me think. why can't we have the faith of a child?In His love, chanin

Hi Samyou write:I have seen some approach this by changing the punctuation around, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Women should..." Would this be the way you handle this text? There is an interesting family link here.for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. (1Co 14:33-34 ASV) This is the route the ASV took, and has been followed by the RSV and now by the ESVFor God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. (1Co 14:33-34 RSVA)For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (1Co 14:33-34 ESV)but the NASB has consciously broken with the ASV and the RSV is reverting to the older divisions of ideas; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. (1Co 14:33-34 NASB)So what chance do we amateurs have of adding anything to this? Well, I'll tell you what I did...I checked Paul's usage of 'Os' the word translated 'as', especially in 1 Corinthians. It is unusual for someone to use a word differently within the space of a few sentences without commenting; the natural tendence would be to use it in the same way as previously unless there was good reason to do otherwise, and then usually we would make sure that our readers had noticed that we were breaking with our previous pattern.What do I discover about 'Os'? Its simplest meaning is 'as, like' in the way we use them as comparisons or similes. So 'Os' is looking for a comparison or point of reference to connect one idea to another. (Hope you're following my tortuous logic here) I think the most natural link here is between the behaviour that has preceded it and behaviour in all the 'other' churches of the saints. I can't find an instance of 'Os' starting a new idea as it would be if the link was with the proceeding verse.As I read 1 Cor 14 I see Paul correcting excesses and abuses in the assembly at Corinth. He has been speaking about the prophetic gift in the gathering as it might operate in any individual and particularly as it operates in those whose lives are categorised by its exercise ie. prophets. He wants to avoid 'confusion' (KJV) or 'tumult' as Young's translates it which is the way the KJV translates the word elsewhere in 2 Corinthians.As I imagine the Corinthians gathering from the evidence in 1 Corinthians I think the competitive utterances of those prophesying and of prophets would be much more likely to cause 'tumult' than sisters 'teaching' (which is what I think this 'silent women' is about) in the assembly. Consequently I am for the KJV and NASB choice of attaching this to the previous idea rather than to the next.On the wider issue of 'silent women' I think we have visited that topic earlier on SI.

when i brought this topic up about headcovering. she just looked at me and said so matter of factly. 'Well, Mom, i think God's going to use me whether I wear a head covering or not. He has His plans already layed out for me, and I don't see a headcovering in those plans." and then she laughed and it really made me think. why can't we have the faith of a child?Yes, I had all the answers at 15 too. :-D Never say never.

Philologos,Agent001 wrote:Would this be the way you handle this text?I finally figured out that your answer is a tortuously long way of saying "Yes". :)

[This is the type of conclusion that is crystal clear if you have made your mind up!.Philologos I am actually reviewing this topic to come to a conclusion with an open mind. Not sure if I follow your post on "Os" but will read it till I do. Does anyone know the background to haedcovering form an old testament context and why Paul overturns it for men. I feel maybe if we concentrate on the men more than the ladies we may come to a better understanding. Paul

I finally figured out that your answer is a tortuously long way of saying "Yes". Luther once complained regarding Jerome's comments on Galatians; "Jerome laboureth abundantly but leaveth it unexplained." I obviously suffer from the same condition.If you substitute the word 'No' for 'Yes' you would be closer to my conclusions. :-?

Does anyone know the background to haedcovering form an old testament context and why Paul overturns it for men. I feel maybe if we concentrate on the men more than the ladies we may come to a better understanding. I think you're right. Back soon.

Does anyone know the background to haedcovering form an old testament context and why Paul overturns it for men. I feel maybe if we concentrate on the men more than the ladies we may come to a better understanding. Just a start…I do think it is very significant that Paul begins this section of Corinthians by referring to the ordinances or traditions. Traditions can be good or bad, depending on their source. Sometimes traditions are just errors grown old, sometimes they are precious gems handed down from generation to generation. Paul claimed that his teaching on the Lord's supper was such a 'hand to hand heritage'. (1 Cor 11:23) He is keen to point out that the Lord's supper did not originate with him, but was entrusted to him. He is passing on what he has received. This section (1 Cor 11) is one of several in 1 Corinthians in which Paul is answering questions which have been asked in the Corinthians correspondence with him. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:..." 1 Cor 7:1 The questions seem to have included sexual relationships and differing aspects of divorce and marriage; the question of food which had been offered to idols (Ch 8) There are others but the familiar word 'now' that had appeared in 1 Cor 7:1, 8:1 reappears in 1 Cor 11:2. This section really begins at verse 2 rather than verse 1.He praises the Corinthians because they are continuing in the traditions that he had passed on to them. It seems most likely to me as I read this passage that the usual pattern at Corinth was for the men to remain uncovered and the women to cover their heads. He has just said that the pattern of life of the Corinthian believers should not give offence to Jews, Greeks or the church of God. It seems most likely that one of the questions he had received had to do with the behaviour of the saints as they gathered together. It seems most likely to me that the usual Corinthian behaviour of men with heads uncovered and women with heads covered was being questioned. This is the most 'church orientated' letter in the New Testament. Watchman Nee's excellent article on this topic which was linked by Agent001 says that the church is not in view in these instructions regarding the uncovering and covering of heads. I cannot agree with him in this; I think the whole context of the passages beginning in chapter 11 is the church at worship. And I think the church is very much the focus of this passage of scripture.I don't think it would be true to say that Christ was 'the head of every man' in any context other than the church. The head of most men is Adam. Although we fail so often the gathering of the saints potentially is one of the most extraordinary things on earth. Here Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, men, women, were to manifest the fact of ‘one body by the cross’. They were no longer many but one, although their gifts were many. Every other relationship was submitted to this one great truth; they were one in Christ. Here wonderful truths could be demonstrated in the oneness of the one body. Only in a body where each knew they were of equal worth in God’s sight and jointed together without reference to ability or status could this be demonstrated. What will be demonstrated here is not subservience but submission.Paul begins by saying “I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” We know that the Father is not intrinsically superior to the Son, but that in the work of redemption the Son has taken this place of voluntary submission to the Father. It is important in following this theme that we note especially that the Son is not subservient to the Father but has chosen submission to Him. There are hints in 1 Cor 15 that we shall see a different relationship later in the story; God will be all in all. In the outworking of redemption too the head of every man is Christ, this again is not subservience but submission. And in the same kind of sequence the woman is not subservient to the man but in submission. Where would this submission be revealed? The record of the church’s beginnings in Lydia may provide us with an illustration. Acts 16:14 refers to a business women named Lydia. The account refers to her ‘household’. She was obviously a women of some substance with property and household servants. Would she have become ‘submitted’ to the male servants in her house? I think not, and there would be many such. We know that Paul did not attempt to change the social patterns of slavery; this was not his mission. There was a place though were the submission of the woman to the man was demonstrated and that was in the gathering of the saints.When Paul launches into his teaching on the topic of coverings he begins with the man; “every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered dishonoureth his head”. The original question was why did Paul overturn this for men? I think we should settle this before we move on. What follows is built upon this foundation. I would suggest that the answers to this question will provide our best premise for the rest of the topic.Jewish men covered their heads in prayer. The popular legend is that they did do in preparation for the Messiah; when the Messiah appeared they would uncover their heads. I am unconvinced with this explanation. Bareheadedness was more usually a sign of mourning than of celebration. The High Priest was specifically commanded not to uncover his head nor to tear his garments; this would be a sign of grief not of celebration. Roman priests also covered their heads. The famous sculpture of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus (Great-Bridge or Chief Priest) has him with his head covered with his toga. Greek priests were indifferent to these things and served bareheaded. Remembering that only 5 verses earlier than this Paul has admonished the saints to ‘give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles (Greeks almost certainly means non-Jews in this context) nor to the church of God’, we can be sure that there is something of significance here which warranted Paul risking the offence of both Jews and Romans.The answer must me that something had changed, but what? My answer is a very simple one; the Man has been revealed, and in the symbols of that ‘the man’ ought not to be veiled. The Man’s companion has not yet been revealed; it doth not yet appear what we shall be. The tradition of coverings has encapsulated this epoch in which we live. In the gathered church, it is the Man who is to be revealed, not the ‘companion’. In biblical truth the ‘Woman’ (not womankind) was created as a help, answering to the image of the Man. So is the church; she is for His glory. She has a distinctive glory of her own, symbolised in her longer hair, but this is not the epoch in which it is to be revealed, so she covers it as an abiding testimony that the Man is now revealed, and she (the church) remains veiled.That’s already too long for one post, my apologies.

PhilologosIs what you are saying this.Jesus is revealed as The Christ so men reveal themsleves, but the Bride ( the woman the church) is not so the women keep a covering?Sorry if I seem slowPaul

Jesus is revealed as The Christ so men reveal themsleves, but the Bride ( the woman the church) is not so the women keep a covering?Sorry if I seem slowI can wait. ;-) Yes, the Man, Christ Jesus, has now been revealed. (Heb 2:6-9) We can already 'see Jesus'. Heb 2:9 but the full revelation of the glory of the Church still awaits its day. "to Him be the glory in the assembly (the church) in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages. Amen." (Eph 3:21 LITV)"And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;" (Rev 21:9-11 KJV)There 'she' is 'having the glory of God', but she is not yet complete, has not yet 'made herself ready' (Rev 19:7)This has a very practical outworking too. The concentration of the New Testament is on the Bridegroom rather than the Bride. I wonder whether that is as true in our own day? Is the 'Church Growth' movement a manifestation of an ec-centric church rather than a Christ-centred one?