Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Head Coverings

  1. #1

    Head Coverings

    I have not talked about this topic before and have not seen this topic for ages, my guess is that today people no longer think that the symbol of the head covering is important or necessary.

    Yes, my wife wears a head covering, and I have never been in a church where it is compulsory or where every woman wears one but we attend a church where it is allowed to wear one without any outward persecution.

    Obviously it is straight forward that the bible says that women should have their heads covered when we meet for the Lords remembrance.

    I’m happy that modern movies honestly portray older time periods where women wear head coverings, it seems it was a universal practice across all denominations, but from about 60-100 years ago the practice started declining!

    So what happened? were all the interpretations wrong for all those centuries and now the truth has been finally understood, or does the 20th century feminist movement while having a positive effect upon the mistreatment of women has in turn a negative side effect to it in cases like this where an overreaction has occurred, and now how can todays modern woman wear a symbol showing her submissiveness where its frowned upon?

    Is it wrong for us(my wife) to wear a head covering, I honestly think the bible instructs us to do this in practice, and I honestly think I would be walking in disobedience in Gods sight to ignore this.(not to mention the angels watching us)

    If the bible does indeed say women are to cover their heads, are people nuts today ignoring this and will there be side effects or is it a sign of the times, for is not all disobedience sin? how do you view these verses from 1st Corinthian 11?


    1Co 11:3-9
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is theman; and the head of Christ is God.

    Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

    But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for thatis even all one as if she were shaven.

    For if the woman ben ot covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

    For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: butthe woman is the glory of the man.
    For the man is not ofthe woman; but the woman of the man.

    Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


    A famous quote I like for it sums up my feelings about this: “It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience”

    And another: “my conscience is captive to the Word of God”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,050

    Re: Head Coverings

    I judge that the following verses are as crucial to the subject. 1 Corinthians 11:10-16;

    10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
    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."


    Besides the command for a woman to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying, the next seven verses add decisive information.
    In verse 10 the whole thing is not for man, but for the ANGELS
    In verses 11 to 12 the equality of man and woman before God is established
    In verse 13 our consciences should testify that a woman should pray or prophecy with a headcovering
    In verse 14 the man should have short hair so as not to be covered when he prays or prophesies
    In verse 15 nature even gives a woman a head covering and it is a "glory" - "a visible manifestation of something praiseworthy" (Vine)
    In verse 16 the Corinthian Church does not set the pace, but those Churches starting with Jerusalem, the which demand headcovering for women

    The matter is thus:

    God deals with His creature in TWO ways. (1) Grace, in which all are equal, and (2) in Government where a certain structure leads to the smooth functioning of the creation.
    (1) In the matter of grace and judgment all stand equal before God (Rom.2:6-12, 10:12). There is no difference between man and woman. When God ordained that man would be rulers of this earth it is, "let THEM have dominion". The grammar applies to ALL men and women.

    (2) In Government each has his/her position and any attempt to swap positions ends in chaos. The Laws of nature keep everything in the universe going smoothly and never change. A car has three major components. (1) Engine, (2) gearbox, and (3) differential. They are placed in a certain order. If the gearbox suddenly wanted to be before the engine, the car would accelerate to the maximum revolutions of the engine and then go no faster. If the differential wanted to be before the gearbox the car would go normally until the first corner. The outside wheel would go faster than the inner wheel and the axle would be destroyed rending the car useless. And just as the electrons of an atom circle the protons and neutrons, and they don't fly apart, so the earth circles the sun and never wanders off track. If they rebelled against these rules the universe would be a shambles and you and I could not exist.

    God has ordained God as HEAD of Christ, Christ as the HEAD of the MAN, the man HEAD of the WOMAN and the woman head of the CHILDREN (1st Cor.11:3). This is not to oppress anybody. It is to create a working order where each one applies their strengths to achieve an orderly family structure. AND IN THIS MATTER THE WOMAN FAILED IN RESPECT TO THE ANGELS!

    I do not say that the man is better than the woman, or visa versa, nor do I say they are the same. Just as the engine is different to the gearbox, but both are equally needed, so the man is different to the woman, but both are equally needed, as our verses above show. But in some things the man is better, just as in some other things the woman is better. And the Lord's government in the family is needed because, among other things, the woman is (1) the weaker vessel, and (2) more liable to deception (1st Pet.3:7; 1st Tim.2:11-14). AND IN TWO TERRIBLE EVENTS INVOLVING ANGELS THE WOMAN FAILED. They are;
    1. In Eden, the Serpent, having observed his enemy, decided to approach the woman and not the man. Her duty was to answer the Serpent that she will consult with the man. She did not, and WENT OVER HER HEAD. I do not minimize Adam's fault in the matter, and it would seem (although some women would disagree) that God held Adam responsible first as Adam's curse lasted "all the days of his life" while the woman's curse was short and soon forgotten. Eve went over her HEAD and the whole human race was plunged into loss, corruption and death.
    2. Shortly afterward, ANGELS approached woman to corrupt the "seed of the woman". Woman, without consulting their HEADS, their men, mated with angels. It was Satan's attempt to stop the line and birth of Jesus as a 100% Man. Only a Man could save men, and if all women's seed was polluted by the seed of ANGELS; our Lord Jesus could not have been born a 100% Man. Noah was saved because "his GENERATIONS were perfect" - that is, the way he had been generated. No ANGEL-seed was involved.

    In Israel, prayer was sent to God via the High Priest and Altar of Incense in the Tabernacle. But since the Veil of the Temple was torn from above to below at Christ's death, men AND women can approach God via our Lord Jesus, the New Altar of Incense. That is, in the Church, for the first time, and in a unique way, WOMEN CAN, AND MUST, JUMP OVER THEIR HEAD - THE MAN! I cannot approach God for my wife. I am profane. She has to go directly to God in Jesus' Name. IN ESSENCE THIS OVERTURNS THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD, for the woman should go via her Head, the husband. But in prayer and prophecy the husband is neither authorized, nor has the standing to be Mediator. So God has ordained that women can jump over their Heads, the man, BUT TO SHOW THE ANGELS THAT SHE FULLY AGREES WITH GOD'S GOVERNMENT, SHE WILL COVER HER HEAD. What does the covering mean?

    In the Bible, a COVERING was needed for (1) something holy, and (2) something naked or defiled.
    1. The Ark of the Covenant and its contents were ALWAYS to be covered - by the Tent when it was still, and by the Veil or "Curtain" when it traveled. It was too Holy to look upon, and profane men would die if the looked at it (Nu.4:20). Likewise, Jesus, the very God of the Universe, was "Veiled" by His flesh so that men would not come into direct contact with God and be killed (Heb.10:20).
    2. Noah became drunk. He was naked. The grandson of the son that broadcasted his nakedness was cursed because his grandfather "showed" his father's nakedness. The two other sons reverenced Noah and walked backwards to cover him. The High Priest of Israel had special clothes for entering the Holy of Holies that once a year. None of his flesh was to be exposed except his face - lest he die. The flesh is irretrievably defiled.

    So the MEANING of the HEADCOVERING is clear:
    1. It is a sign TO THE ANGELS - not men, that the woman, in the exercise of her right to pray or prophesy (if she is so gifted), she must jump God's government, BUT SHE TESTIFIES, WITH HER HEAD COVERED, TO THE ANGELS THAT SHE STILL FULLY ABIDES BY AND EMBRACES GOD'S GOVERNMENT
    2. It is a sign that SHE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HER HUSBAND IS FALLEN, BUT STILL REMAINS HER HEAD BY DECREE OF GOD.


    Should it not be counted a massive privilege that Christian women ONLY - not the man, get to make this declaration to angels? And men, because their HEAD is Christ, must pray and prophecy UNCOVERED! Christ is worthy and undefiled.

  3. #3

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by boangry View Post
    I have not talked about this topic before and have not seen this topic for ages, my guess is that today people no longer think that the symbol of the head covering is important or necessary.

    Yes, my wife wears a head covering, and I have never been in a church where it is compulsory or where every woman wears one but we attend a church where it is allowed to wear one without any outward persecution.

    Obviously it is straight forward that the bible says that women should have their heads covered when we meet for the Lords remembrance.

    I’m happy that modern movies honestly portray older time periods where women wear head coverings, it seems it was a universal practice across all denominations, but from about 60-100 years ago the practice started declining!

    So what happened? were all the interpretations wrong for all those centuries and now the truth has been finally understood, or does the 20th century feminist movement while having a positive effect upon the mistreatment of women has in turn a negative side effect to it in cases like this where an overreaction has occurred, and now how can todays modern woman wear a symbol showing her submissiveness where its frowned upon?

    Is it wrong for us(my wife) to wear a head covering, I honestly think the bible instructs us to do this in practice, and I honestly think I would be walking in disobedience in Gods sight to ignore this.(not to mention the angels watching us)

    If the bible does indeed say women are to cover their heads, are people nuts today ignoring this and will there be side effects or is it a sign of the times, for is not all disobedience sin? how do you view these verses from 1st Corinthian 11?


    1Co 11:3-9
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is theman; and the head of Christ is God.

    Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

    But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for thatis even all one as if she were shaven.

    For if the woman ben ot covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

    For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: butthe woman is the glory of the man.
    For the man is not ofthe woman; but the woman of the man.

    Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


    A famous quote I like for it sums up my feelings about this: “It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience”

    And another: “my conscience is captive to the Word of God”
    At the risk of sounding like a "liberal" I have to agree with those who think Paul's views here are "dated." They are meaningful within the particular culture in which "head coverings" symbolized certain things.

    For example, if men wear dresses in our time they may be thought to be a homosexual. That's because in our culture wearing a dress is a symbol of female attire. In another culture or in another time men have worn "dresses" as typical male attire.

    In Paul's day, wearing a head covering was a female symbol of submission to male authority in the home. Christians are all supposed to "submit to one another." But within the home the male was supposed to carry greater decision-making authority with respect to running the house (not, however, in matters related to spiritual discipleship). This may be compared with children saying "Yes sir" to their father or to adults. It is a symbol of respect for authority.

    Of course, in another day and time, showing respect for authority can take place in many other ways, and does not require the same symbols that Paul utilized. Wearing head coverings were purely symbolic of showing respect in a particular culture.

    So Paul's statements here are predicated on the recognition that this symbol is in play. Today, it is not, though the principle remains the same. Women can still acknowledge male authority in the home--even without a hat on. A hat is not the essential matter--the recognition of authority in the home is.

    It's the same with long hair. In Paul's culture long hair was the attempt by a man to act like a woman. But long hair does not have to depict the attempt by a man to appear like a woman. Paul is simply arguing that by nature women tend to have their hair differently from men. Perhaps it is because they wear their hair longer to appeal to men? It would be not to prostitute themselves, of course, but rather, to beautify, to enhance the home. Women are the more beautiful gender.

    But men can, in a natural sense, have longer hair than may have been "normal" in Paul's time. So what really matters is not the length of the hair, but rather, whether the man wishes to appear as a woman. In the Law men were not to act like women, and women were not to act like men. The symbols of gender change over time, and from culture to culture. The symbols are only important in the culture in which they have meaning.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,077

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by boangry View Post
    I have not talked about this topic before and have not seen this topic for ages, my guess is that today people no longer think that the symbol of the head covering is important or necessary.

    Yes, my wife wears a head covering, and I have never been in a church where it is compulsory or where every woman wears one but we attend a church where it is allowed to wear one without any outward persecution.

    Obviously it is straight forward that the bible says that women should have their heads covered when we meet for the Lords remembrance.

    I’m happy that modern movies honestly portray older time periods where women wear head coverings, it seems it was a universal practice across all denominations, but from about 60-100 years ago the practice started declining!

    So what happened? were all the interpretations wrong for all those centuries and now the truth has been finally understood, or does the 20th century feminist movement while having a positive effect upon the mistreatment of women has in turn a negative side effect to it in cases like this where an overreaction has occurred, and now how can todays modern woman wear a symbol showing her submissiveness where its frowned upon?

    Is it wrong for us(my wife) to wear a head covering, I honestly think the bible instructs us to do this in practice, and I honestly think I would be walking in disobedience in Gods sight to ignore this.(not to mention the angels watching us)

    If the bible does indeed say women are to cover their heads, are people nuts today ignoring this and will there be side effects or is it a sign of the times, for is not all disobedience sin? how do you view these verses from 1st Corinthian 11?


    1Co 11:3-9
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is theman; and the head of Christ is God.

    Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

    But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for thatis even all one as if she were shaven.

    For if the woman ben ot covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

    For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: butthe woman is the glory of the man.
    For the man is not ofthe woman; but the woman of the man.

    Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


    A famous quote I like for it sums up my feelings about this: “It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience”

    And another: “my conscience is captive to the Word of God”
    If it is right for you, by all means do it. I just do not personally see where this head covering for woman was a commandment from God. Paul did not say, "Thus says the Lord" when he offered his personal guidance. Besides, the next few verses shed more light.

    1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

    A woman's hair IS her covering, not a scarf. On top of that, Paul says plainly that this head covering business is not a custom of his or the churches of God. If God never indicated a woman should cover her head, and even Paul says it is not even a custom in the churches, why does it really matter? If someone want to do it, great. If not, no big deal whatsoever.

    This is my opinion only. I think the reason the women's head covering has declined is because more people actually read the Bible for themselves today. 100 years ago a significant number of people still could not read and had to rely on the preacher. Uneducated people are less likely to investigate a matter for themselves. That really isn't an issue so much today. The head covering was, by Paul's own admission, no big deal in his own first century Middle Eastern culture. It certainly isn't an issue in a western culture. But, if it right for you by your conscience, by all means do it. No harm either way.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,050

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    If it is right for you, by all means do it. I just do not personally see where this head covering for woman was a commandment from God. Paul did not say, "Thus says the Lord" when he offered his personal guidance. Besides, the next few verses shed more light.

    1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

    A woman's hair IS her covering, not a scarf. On top of that, Paul says plainly that this head covering business is not a custom of his or the churches of God. If God never indicated a woman should cover her head, and even Paul says it is not even a custom in the churches, why does it really matter? If someone want to do it, great. If not, no big deal whatsoever.

    This is my opinion only. I think the reason the women's head covering has declined is because more people actually read the Bible for themselves today. 100 years ago a significant number of people still could not read and had to rely on the preacher. Uneducated people are less likely to investigate a matter for themselves. That really isn't an issue so much today. The head covering was, by Paul's own admission, no big deal in his own first century Middle Eastern culture. It certainly isn't an issue in a western culture. But, if it right for you by your conscience, by all means do it. No harm either way.
    1st Corinthians 11:16 does not say that head-covering for woman is not a custom of his or the churches of God. It says that CONTENTION about the matter is not a custom in the Churches of God. That is, head-covering is an established fact of the early Church and the Corinthians should not create a new custom by objecting to it.

    Also, the woman's hair is NATURES head-covering. The Christian woman is then, as a sign to the angels (not men), to cover her head additionally when praying or prophesying. 1st Corinthians 11:5-6 makes them two separate things. "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
    Last edited by Walls; Nov 14th 2017 at 03:07 PM.

  6. #6

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    If it is right for you, by all means do it. I just do not personally see where this head covering for woman was a commandment from God. Paul did not say, "Thus says the Lord" when he offered his personal guidance. Besides, the next few verses shed more light.

    1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

    A woman's hair IS her covering, not a scarf. On top of that, Paul says plainly that this head covering business is not a custom of his or the churches of God. If God never indicated a woman should cover her head, and even Paul says it is not even a custom in the churches, why does it really matter? If someone want to do it, great. If not, no big deal whatsoever.
    Yes, but are you not then saying a woman's hair is her covering and if she does not wear it then might as well then have her hair shaved off? That doesn't make sense to me, also a man is to have his head uncovered, obviously his hair is not a covering.


    This is my opinion only. I think the reason the women's head covering has declined is because more people actually read the Bible for themselves today. 100 years ago a significant number of people still could not read and had to rely on the preacher. Uneducated people are less likely to investigate a matter for themselves. That really isn't an issue so much today. The head covering was, by Paul's own admission, no big deal in his own first century Middle Eastern culture. It certainly isn't an issue in a western culture. But, if it right for you by your conscience, by all means do it. No harm either way.
    Interesting I would like to know which generation was actually more bible literate, I get the feeling those in the 1800's early 1900's knew their bibles inside out.

  7. #7

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    At the risk of sounding like a "liberal" I have to agree with those who think Paul's views here are "dated." They are meaningful within the particular culture in which "head coverings" symbolized certain things.
    The liberals are taking over

    For example, if men wear dresses in our time they may be thought to be a homosexual. That's because in our culture wearing a dress is a symbol of female attire. In another culture or in another time men have worn "dresses" as typical male attire.

    In Paul's day, wearing a head covering was a female symbol of submission to male authority in the home. Christians are all supposed to "submit to one another." But within the home the male was supposed to carry greater decision-making authority with respect to running the house (not, however, in matters related to spiritual discipleship). This may be compared with children saying "Yes sir" to their father or to adults. It is a symbol of respect for authority.
    Are you sure this was the case in the Corinthian culture? it definitely wasn't from the Roman or Jewish influence and if the church was Jewish in flavour then wouldn't the men be wearing head coverings when they meet?

    Of course, in another day and time, showing respect for authority can take place in many other ways, and does not require the same symbols that Paul utilized. Wearing head coverings were purely symbolic of showing respect in a particular culture.

    So Paul's statements here are predicated on the recognition that this symbol is in play. Today, it is not, though the principle remains the same. Women can still acknowledge male authority in the home--even without a hat on. A hat is not the essential matter--the recognition of authority in the home is.
    True women can still acknowledge male authority in the home without a symbol, as we can be Baptised without going through the symbolic gesture, but I don't think the symbol has changed especially in a church setting, everyone knows what it means.



    It's the same with long hair. In Paul's culture long hair was the attempt by a man to act like a woman. But long hair does not have to depict the attempt by a man to appear like a woman. Paul is simply arguing that by nature women tend to have their hair differently from men. Perhaps it is because they wear their hair longer to appeal to men? It would be not to prostitute themselves, of course, but rather, to beautify, to enhance the home. Women are the more beautiful gender.

    But men can, in a natural sense, have longer hair than may have been "normal" in Paul's time. So what really matters is not the length of the hair, but rather, whether the man wishes to appear as a woman. In the Law men were not to act like women, and women were not to act like men. The symbols of gender change over time, and from culture to culture. The symbols are only important in the culture in which they have meaning.
    I see long hair on men as having a heart nature of rebellion its their throwing off their authority or responsibility, look at all the rock groups they have long hair, rock n roll and rebel and the kids(myself once included ) relate to it. And women who have short hair (I cant say it ill get murdered) instead check out couples you know the couples where the wife has short hair its like 90% of the time she's the one wielding the authority or wearing the pants, its natural for her to have short hair.

    Check out the military or the police, they have codes of dress wear men have to have short hair, why? So they are seen as authoritive, who would respect a police man with long hair it would be a contradiction of nature.

    Honestly, I want my son to find a girl who likes having long hair to marry, unless he like a fiery woman (which he might, haha)

    Now im going to run before im hunted down and beat up by women with short hair, ( I mean they will send their husbands )

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,077

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    1st Corinthians 11:16 does not say that head-covering for woman is not a custom of his or the churches of God. It says that CONTENTION about the matter is not a custom in the Churches of God.
    If the plain reading in the NKJV is indeed not as I say, but as you say, it is the strangest statement in the Bible. Contention is not a custom in the churches? That doesn't even make any sense. There are a wide variety of translations for this verse. I haven't investigated the Greek, so I'm only speaking from what the NKJV seems to plainly say.

    1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

    Also, the woman's hair is NATURES head-covering. The Christian woman is then, as a sign to the angels (not men), to cover here head additionally when praying or prophesying. 1st Corinthians 11:5-6 makes them two separate things. "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
    Paul is talking about how it understood that a woman with short hair is shameful, just as a man with a long hair covering is shameful. I disagree about a woman's long hair NOT being the very covering Paul was talking about, but I have no desire to make any argument over this issue.

  9. #9

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    1st Corinthians 11:16 does not say that head-covering for woman is not a custom of his or the churches of God. It says that CONTENTION about the matter is not a custom in the Churches of God. That is, head-covering is an established fact of the early Church and the Corinthians should not create a new custom by objecting to it.

    Also, the woman's hair is NATURES head-covering. The Christian woman is then, as a sign to the angels (not men), to cover here head additionally when praying or prophesying. 1st Corinthians 11:5-6 makes them two separate things. "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
    I agree with you that Paul is favoring the position of a woman wearing a hair covering at that time. It was customary *at that time.* He was not establishing it as a universal truth, as if this was being handed down from Mt. Sinai, or "thus saith the Lord." It was, as the brother noted, an opinion of Paul's. And Paul elsewhere distinguished between his opinion and the Lord's word. The only reason Paul here does not make that distinction is because it was universally a matter of custom *in that day!*

    The obvious conclusion we should draw is that if it is no longer *customary* then it should not be required. That is what some here may be ignoring.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,077

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by boangry View Post
    Yes, but are you not then saying a woman's hair is her covering and if she does not wear it then might as well then have her hair shaved off? That doesn't make sense to me,
    Paul did not say, it might as well be shaved off. He said shorn, which simply means cut short like a man. Shaved is different than shorn.

    also a man is to have his head uncovered, obviously his hair is not a covering.
    That is the whole point. If a woman is shorn, meaning she has short hair like a man, THEN she dishonors her head. Her head is her husband. If she has short hair like her husband and prays and prophesies, then she is acting in his place and therefore dishonors him.

    Likewise, a man is not to have long hair when he prays or prophesies, thus covering his head. Because he then is acting in his wife's place.

    For some reason, I think I may have made this confusing, so I'll run through the passage quickly. Upfront, I have no problem with how you interpret this passage and I make no effort whatsoever to change your mind or argue. Simply trying to convey my own understanding.

    4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

    If a man prays having long hair like a woman, he dishonors his head, which is Christ. Because Christ DID NOT HAVE LONG HAIR. (Sorry, the depictions of a long haired hippy Jesus bother me.) Christ has short hair and man was made in His image. Therefore, man is have short hair in the image of His creator, his head, Christ.

    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.

    If a woman prays without a covering, that is, prays with short hair, she dishonors her head, which is her husband. This is because she now has the image of a man, thus she is praying in her husband's place and so dishonors him. With the exception of modern cancer treatments, it is extremely rare for a woman to ever be naturally bald. But, it is very common for a man to be bald. God does this for a reason, so that woman does not take the image of a man. So, if a woman has short hair like a man, it is equally shameful as her head being shaved. Both make her appear as a man.

    6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

    Repeat. Since it is shameful for a woman to have short hair, as well as shaving her head, let her head be covered with long hair.

    7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

    Man is not to have long hair like woman because he is the image of God who has short hair.

    10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

    All angels are SONS of God. There are no female angels as they are not given to marriage or reproduction. The angels make records of us everyday. Therefore, woman should have long hair as a symbol of man's authority over her. Otherwise, she is in rebellion, taking the place of man.

    13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

    Is it proper for a woman to pray with short hair as a man? Of course not.

    14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

    Basic common sense. It is shameful for a man to have long hair, since he is in the image of Christ, his head. Just as it is shameful for woman to have short hair and thus seek to be in the image of Christ rather than the glory of her husband. Long hair was given to woman, by God, for covering of her head. That is why woman never go bald naturally. God gave them a covering. The long hair IS the covering, not a hat or scarf. Anyway, that is how I understand this. Again, I do not seek to change your mind however.

    Interesting I would like to know which generation was actually more bible literate, I get the feeling those in the 1800's early 1900's knew their bibles inside out.
    I could only guess really as I have no way to really know. I will say that lots of memorizing and assuming does not mean a person understands anything. Most of the Bible commentaries of this era are really really weak. I would agree that since the concept of literary hyperbole has been taught in Bible colleges, our overall understanding has plunged as a result. This concept removes the faith requirement. Faith comes first, then wisdom. Not the other way around.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,050

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    If the plain reading in the NKJV is indeed not as I say, but as you say, it is the strangest statement in the Bible. Contention is not a custom in the churches? That doesn't even make any sense. There are a wide variety of translations for this verse. I haven't investigated the Greek, so I'm only speaking from what the NKJV seems to plainly say.

    1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.



    Paul is talking about how it understood that a woman with short hair is shameful, just as a man with a long hair covering is shameful. I disagree about a woman's long hair NOT being the very covering Paul was talking about, but I have no desire to make any argument over this issue.
    Good. We've both set forth our points and we can walk away in peace now. It reminds me of Psalm 133. I wish all on this Forum could do that. Thanks and God bless.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,050

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree with you that Paul is favoring the position of a woman wearing a hair covering at that time. It was customary *at that time.* He was not establishing it as a universal truth, as if this was being handed down from Mt. Sinai, or "thus saith the Lord." It was, as the brother noted, an opinion of Paul's. And Paul elsewhere distinguished between his opinion and the Lord's word. The only reason Paul here does not make that distinction is because it was universally a matter of custom *in that day!*

    The obvious conclusion we should draw is that if it is no longer *customary* then it should not be required. That is what some here may be ignoring.
    It is true that God used men to write His Oracles. The men who wrote were subject to personal style, education, thinking processes and the like. But once it has landed in the Canon of Scripture, and Scripture makes the claim, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2nd Tim.3:16), we must bow our heads and accept EVERY Instruction as "thus says the Lord".

    Furthermore, if my argument about the angles in posting #2 is correct, then NOTHING CHANGES with the years. The woman's role in God's government has not changed and neither has her standing before the angels changed. What was a sign to angels then is equally valid today. Matthew 24:37-38 says that the days immediately preceding the coming of Jesus are to be like those of Noah. What marked Noah's day was (1) violence, and (2) angels mating with women. The head covering is needed today MORE than ever as a witness to ALL women that those pious women who love the Lord embrace His government.

  13. #13

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    It is true that God used men to write His Oracles. The men who wrote were subject to personal style, education, thinking processes and the like. But once it has landed in the Canon of Scripture, and Scripture makes the claim, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2nd Tim.3:16), we must bow our heads and accept EVERY Instruction as "thus says the Lord".

    Furthermore, if my argument about the angles in posting #2 is correct, then NOTHING CHANGES with the years. The woman's role in God's government has not changed and neither has her standing before the angels changed. What was a sign to angels then is equally valid today. Matthew 24:37-38 says that the days immediately preceding the coming of Jesus are to be like those of Noah. What marked Noah's day was (1) violence, and (2) angels mating with women. The head covering is needed today MORE than ever as a witness to ALL women that those pious women who love the Lord embrace His government.
    I respectfully disagree, brother. If hats were that important there would've been much more written about them--not just here in this NT passage, but also throughout the Scriptures. What do you see about wearing hats throughout the OT Scriptures or elsewhere in the NT Scriptures? For determining cardinal doctrines of the Church we must "compare Scripture with Scripture" to clearly determine what the Holy Spirit is telling us--not just accept your interpretation of it.

    Once something becomes canon it becomes "thus saith the Lord?" Is that what you said? On the contrary, canon means reliability and inspiration. We often confuse God's word with the records of men that God sanctioned by authority of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference. I believe, for example, that all of Scripture is inspired. But I will hardly say that all of Scripture was a "prophecy."

    I referred to Paul's statement here....
    1 Cor 7.25 25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

    Here Paul is saying that his inspired advice is *not* a "command from the Lord." This completely disproves what you are basing your statement on. All Scripture, including this particular passage, is not an "oracle of God."

    Not only this but Paul did *not* establish this "head covering" proposal as a universal, cardinal doctrine of the Church. Rather, he established it in his own particular culture, since that culture at that time had a consensus practice determining how a woman shows deference to male authority. It was at that time by wearing a hat. But Paul does not refer to this practice as anything other than what was at that time "customary," because he did not refer to past practices, established under the Law, nor did it project its requirement into the future, when it might no longer be "customary."

    1 Cor 11.2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you...16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

    The reference to the angels may be an acknowledgment of the curse of the woman in the Garden of Eden. She was to position herself under the rule of her husband. The hat was merely a token of this acknowledgement, displayed before the angels who were witnesses of this divine judgment.

    The comparison between Noah's day and ours is not, I think, completely valid. Jesus was comparing Noah's day to the time of his coming, showing that his coming reflected a judgment against declining morals in society. But the idea of angels mating with people is unScriptural, since Jesus said that angels do not have gender at all.

    Mat 22.30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

    Again, important Scriptural truths should require comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not reliance upon isolated Scripture passages which contain no verification from other sources. This is how strange beliefs and odd practices start. Our emphasis should be on the thing that God emphasizes, indicated by *many references,* rather than by just a few.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,050

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I respectfully disagree, brother. If hats were that important there would've been much more written about them--not just here in this NT passage, but also throughout the Scriptures. What do you see about wearing hats throughout the OT Scriptures or elsewhere in the NT Scriptures? For determining cardinal doctrines of the Church we must "compare Scripture with Scripture" to clearly determine what the Holy Spirit is telling us--not just accept your interpretation of it.

    Once something becomes canon it becomes "thus saith the Lord?" Is that what you said? On the contrary, canon means reliability and inspiration. We often confuse God's word with the records of men that God sanctioned by authority of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference. I believe, for example, that all of Scripture is inspired. But I will hardly say that all of Scripture was a "prophecy."

    I referred to Paul's statement here....
    1 Cor 7.25 25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

    Here Paul is saying that his inspired advice is *not* a "command from the Lord." This completely disproves what you are basing your statement on. All Scripture, including this particular passage, is not an "oracle of God."

    Not only this but Paul did *not* establish this "head covering" proposal as a universal, cardinal doctrine of the Church. Rather, he established it in his own particular culture, since that culture at that time had a consensus practice determining how a woman shows deference to male authority. It was at that time by wearing a hat. But Paul does not refer to this practice as anything other than what was at that time "customary," because he did not refer to past practices, established under the Law, nor did it project its requirement into the future, when it might no longer be "customary."

    1 Cor 11.2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you...16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

    The reference to the angels may be an acknowledgment of the curse of the woman in the Garden of Eden. She was to position herself under the rule of her husband. The hat was merely a token of this acknowledgement, displayed before the angels who were witnesses of this divine judgment.

    The comparison between Noah's day and ours is not, I think, completely valid. Jesus was comparing Noah's day to the time of his coming, showing that his coming reflected a judgment against declining morals in society. But the idea of angels mating with people is unScriptural, since Jesus said that angels do not have gender at all.

    Mat 22.30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

    Again, important Scriptural truths should require comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not reliance upon isolated Scripture passages which contain no verification from other sources. This is how strange beliefs and odd practices start. Our emphasis should be on the thing that God emphasizes, indicated by *many references,* rather than by just a few.
    Thank you for your answer. I have read it and noted it. I have nothing to add so if you're in agreement we can leave it at that. God bless.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,209
    Blog Entries
    30

    Re: Head Coverings

    Quote Originally Posted by boangry View Post
    I have not talked about this topic before and have not seen this topic for ages, my guess is that today people no longer think that the symbol of the head covering is important or necessary.

    Yes, my wife wears a head covering, and I have never been in a church where it is compulsory or where every woman wears one but we attend a church where it is allowed to wear one without any outward persecution.

    Obviously it is straight forward that the bible says that women should have their heads covered when we meet for the Lords remembrance.

    I’m happy that modern movies honestly portray older time periods where women wear head coverings, it seems it was a universal practice across all denominations, but from about 60-100 years ago the practice started declining!

    So what happened? were all the interpretations wrong for all those centuries and now the truth has been finally understood, or does the 20th century feminist movement while having a positive effect upon the mistreatment of women has in turn a negative side effect to it in cases like this where an overreaction has occurred, and now how can todays modern woman wear a symbol showing her submissiveness where its frowned upon?

    Is it wrong for us(my wife) to wear a head covering, I honestly think the bible instructs us to do this in practice, and I honestly think I would be walking in disobedience in Gods sight to ignore this.(not to mention the angels watching us)

    If the bible does indeed say women are to cover their heads, are people nuts today ignoring this and will there be side effects or is it a sign of the times, for is not all disobedience sin? how do you view these verses from 1st Corinthian 11?


    1Co 11:3-9
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is theman; and the head of Christ is God.

    Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

    But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for thatis even all one as if she were shaven.

    For if the woman ben ot covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

    For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: butthe woman is the glory of the man.
    For the man is not ofthe woman; but the woman of the man.

    Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


    A famous quote I like for it sums up my feelings about this: “It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience”

    And another: “my conscience is captive to the Word of God”
    Paul is answering a dilemma Christian women faced. The issue centers on the fact that men customarily wore a head covering, but while praying in public the men removed their head covering out of respect for God. This was not a problem until women were allowed to pray in public at a church service. Married women were required to wear a head covering out of respect for her husband. But what is she supposed to do when she prays in church, remove her head covering to honor God, or wear the head covering to honor her husband. But how would it look? If she removes her head covering to pray, she honors God but dishonors her husband. If she keeps her head covering on her head, she honors her husband but dishonors God. What can she do?

    Paul argues that since a woman honors God when she honors her husband, it makes more sense for her to wear the head covering to honor her husband, while at the same time she also honor's God, since to honor her husband is a way to honor God.

    Since that custom no longer has that meaning, there is no reason to wear a head covering. The important thing is what wearing a head covering indicates. If wearing a head covering customarily indicates respect for husband, then a wife should wear one. But if wearing a head covering is merely for style or appearance, then it doesn't matter either way.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Head Coverings?
    By melbel816 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: Jul 25th 2009, 04:43 PM
  2. Discussion Women AND head Coverings
    By poochie in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Jul 14th 2009, 12:17 AM
  3. get out of my head
    By Aimwell in forum Young Adults Fellowship
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Dec 12th 2008, 10:01 PM
  4. I have no head
    By oscarkipling in forum Christians Answer
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Nov 17th 2008, 11:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •