Head Covering and Silence?

The Biblically smart thing for a woman to do is avoiding marriage like the plague...


What?

 

You do that. You base your obedience to the commands of God on culture.
Be modest, only in the first century.
Be baptized, only in the furst century.
Partake of the Lord's Table, only in the first century.

You base your obedience on culture. But the Word of God doesn't change. I will base my obedience on the Word of God which commands women to wear a head covering without any condition that says "except when your culture is different then the Apostle Paul's".
How much of culture do you think should be changed?
A year or so ago, a large number of women walked across a bridge that connects Canada and the U.S. topless protesting, and demanding their right to walk around the city topless just as many men do. People see men on construction sites working topless, out mowing their lawns without a shirt on, doing all kinds of things with out a shirt on. Women today think that our society should provide the same "right" for women also. That is where our "culture" is headed. If it is culture that you base your "Biblical beliefs" on, do you believe that women should be topless as well? Where will you stop? The Bible sets a standard that doesn't change. The head covering was given for a purpose.
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. The discussion is centered on the wearing of head coverings, and you try to make a point by speaking of modesty, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. You didn't even mention the rest of the post, basing your whole response on the last sentence, and coming to a conclusion far beyond anything I actually said. Business as usual, huh?

It is certainly true that the multitudinous cultures of the world include many aspects which are contrary to the word of God. Abortion is (lamentably) a part of the world's culture, but have you ever heard me say one word in support of it?

The examples of cultural distinctions which run contrary to God's word would be endless, and I don't advocate for any of them. But there are also many cultural distinctions which are well within the bounds of Christian liberty, which one may practice while walking in the light.

For example, a Christian in India may not be able to bring himself to enjoy a juicy rib eye steak as I did today. Neither my eating beef, nor his refusal to eat beef "scores any points" for us as Christians. It is simply the culture in which we each live that allows, or disallows us from enjoying beef.

Could a Scottish man be a Christian and wear a kilt? Most other areas of the world view a kilt as a kind of skirt, which is something usually worn by women. Try telling a Scottsman he's wearing women's clothing! You may end up with a black eye! It's merely a cultural distinction. Can you see my point?

Getting back to the topic, I made the point that only the church at Corinth recieved any instruction concerning the wearing of head coverings by women. I also made the point that the ordinances Paul had previously delivered the church at Corinth apparently did not include instruction concerning the wearing of head coverings. Would you agree that it's possible that the reason is that Corinth may have been the only church where this was an issue?

You know, in the epistle under consideration, Paul also commands The disciples to "greet one another with an holy kiss" (1 Cor 16:20). This instruction is also found in 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thes 5:26, and 1 Pet 5:14. Do you do this? Should I start? Was it a cultural distinction at that time and place? What do you think?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

The nature of your point is really quite absurd.
The entire epistle of First Corinthians was written in answer to a letter to the Corinthians wherein they asked Paul specific questions about problems that they were having in their church. Paul was answering their questions. This is one of the subjects that came up--the topic of head-coverings in relationship to the headship of the man over the woman. Consider:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

That is the key verse to the epistle. He was answering the questions that they had written him.

Now consider the portion of Scripture that deals with headcoverings itself: Why should a woman wear a headcovering in the church?

1. Because of the headship of man (vs 3-6)
(1Co 11:3) But 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.
(1Co 11:4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
(1Co 11:5) 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.
(1Co 11:6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

2.Because of God's order in creation (vs 8.9)
(1Co 11:8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
(1Co 11:9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
--The woman should wear a headcovering to show her submission to her husband, but also to show that she was created for man. It is indicative of God's order in creation. God is a God of order. The man was created first, and then the woman. Back in Genesis the woman was made to be in subjection to the man.

3. Because of the angels (v 10)
(1Co 11:10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
--Remember that angels are not gods; they are not omniscient. They are still learning. They still enquire into the salvation of man. The headcovering of a woman is also a symbol for the angels. It is instructive for them also.

4. Because of a sense of propriety (v 13)
(1Co 11:13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? (WEB)
--It wasn't appropriate. It wasnn't proper. It was shameful. People have no sense of shame today. I could expound on this topic for a few hours considering the degeneration of our society today, but I think you know what I mean.
Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering; vs 14,15)

5.Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--The meaning here is: we do not have the custom of being contentious. We are not going to contend with you. Don't argue with me about it. It is the practice of all the churches of God.

This verse strengthens the argument, not weakens it. Paul says it is the practice of all the churches of God. Don't be contentious about. Just obey it. It is a command of God.
DHK

 

If I must follow all the customs of 2000 and 7000 years ago, I will discard Christianity for something that makes sense.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Paul said it best~
1Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious (causing an argument), we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Take of them covers and come out of hidin' ladies and speak yo peace!

Exit stage right...dodging the book being thrown at me!

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Though I'm not convinced as yet, you make a pretty good case. I'll get back to you.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

About a year and a half ago I lived in North Carolina where my neighbor directly across the street from me would get out in her front yard mowing the yard topless. The kids would get off of the school bus and run in telling us that she was.

I am so glad I am blind. When women feel no shame and have to display themselves like that in public is a disgrace. Adam and Eve hid themselves because they were naked. People want to just ignore the Word of God that liveth and abideth forever.

Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus. Amen

Ron

 

Men have been going topless for years, I guess there is no shame.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim,

True. Wonder when that changed. The Bible does tell us that they both hid because they were naked and ashamed.

We learn that God clothed them. Wonder exactly how much of the man was covered? Surely if the woman's breast was covered, the man's would have to be as well.

Again, wonder when it changed?

Blessings.

Ron

 

There was a time when that was against the law. There was also a time when a woman's ankles could not show.

 

if all women wore headcoverings when they went to church, when they started talking their husbands could slide the coverings from the top of the head over the mouth to silence them.

Maybe headcoverings ain't such a bad idea!

 

Before 1950 it was rare to see women attend a church without a hat or some kind of head covering. During WWII, women were forced into the work force and away from their proper position of keepers of the home. As the feminist movement began in the 50's when the "working woman" was able to assert her independence from her husband, she more and more began to cast off that "authority" that her husband had over her. She became an income provider. She no longer stayed at home raising the children. She found other means, like day care centers. As that authority was cast off, our culture changed. Less and less did women wear hats or head coverings in their churches. Don't you think ther is a correlation? I do.
DHK

 

DHK,

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Many rebel, not because of willingness, but because of ignorance, unfortunately.

 

Correlation? Yes. at last women found freedom in their individuality as a person. Remember, just prior to WW!, women in Canada were not "persons". It took five brave women going to England to face the British Parliament to get the label "person". Through this, women got to vote in their own country and we even got our first female member of parliament.

Hats in churches pretty much remained the norm right into the late 50's and early 60's. I remember one woman coming to me on a Saturday in 1959 to ask if it was ok if she came to church without a hat. My answer was, "I would rather have her in church without a hat than not being in church with a hat.

Women were working in the factories long before WW II. They slaved in sweat shops in the 20's, and in the 30's when men couldn't find jobs.

Because man is head of the household, he is not a slaveholder. For instance, take one law still on the books in London, England: "It is illegal for a man to beat his wife after 9M......" By implication it was ok to beat her before 9M.

God never intended women to be subservient to men, as they were back in the "good old days". There are plenty of examples where women took the lead, especially in the Old Testament. God never frowned on them, and in fact, gave evidence of His pleasure in them and their deeds.

My wife is my mate and not my charperson. She is the love of my life, and not my slave. Thank God. My Lord loves women, with or without a stupid hat.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I do believe that the early church consisted of women that covered their heads for fear of God and It should be that way today. My wife is starting to see it. My understanding is from me taking a look at the early church happenings through ante nicene church fathers. When speaking on head coverings, none make mention of surrounding Pagan women and our women looking different. The issue has always been holiness.

grace and peace

 

Of interesting point: Who were they hiding from? And a second point: What constituted nakedness?

If you go to a Christian church in paupa New Guinea, all the women are topless, but all wear belts. Modesty there is considered having your midriff exposed (both men and women), but an exposed upper body is not considered immodest. I'm not suggesting that we all permit our women to go topless, but I am suggesting that we consider that true scriptural modesty is. It's not just "covering up". It's maintaining a basic level of self-respect.

Scripture indeed commands modesty from us, but modesty is typically defined socially. If it were considered immodest for me to have an uncovered head, I'd be wearing a hat.