Headcover

I do NOT see this as a command of scripture! I agree with Living4Him that if the Holy Spirit has convicted this woman or you that a headveil is necessary, then she should certainly cover.

You have failed to convice or convict me or my husband but then that is the job of the Holy Spirit, and not you.

Diane

 

This question is for DHK. Do the women at your church wear a head covering?

This is simply a question I have. I do not intend to comment one way or another or get into debate with you.

Just something I was wondering about.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

Tam, I've been pondering this same question.

MEE

 

It must be a conviction of the Holy Spirit; that is true. But that conviction will never be held unless one is open to the teaching of the Scripture. Not everything in the Bible is written as direct imperatives like the Ten Commandments are. The Bible does not command men in this way: "Men, thou shalt not have long hair." That is a direct command or imperative. But the Scriptures make a statement that is just as forceful as that command, that to say that it isn't a command is just a game of semantics.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
--No, technically it is not a command. But we would be very foolish to say that it is not the will of God for men not to have long hair. God's will is for man to have short hair. Nature itself teaches us as much. It is a shame if he doesn't. Quite clear isn't it--without even giving a command.

1 Corinthians 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.

If you are playing a game of semantics you say where is the command? Let's rephrase the first part of the verse:
Woman, either cover your head, or shave it bald! (DHK translation)
Now that is a command and that is what the verse means. If you are not going to cover your head it is a shame. It is a shame to the extent that it should be shaven. Therefore, if you are not willing to go around bald-headed, let her be covered. That is a command. Simply put: Be Covered! These are not hard versed to understand. Throughout these many verses Paul repeats the same command many times. In the first few verses he is teaching the principle of headship. Christ is the head of the man. As Christ is the head of the man, so also is the man the head of the woman. For this reason a woman ought to have her head covered, and a man ought not to have his head covered. For those who defiantley believe the covering is the hair in these verses, then it would be teaching that as the hair would always be referring to the covering in the church; logically every man must be uncovered or bald in church.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 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 that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

If hair is the covering, and a man indeed ought not to cover his head, then is it reasonable to assume that every man should be bald??
I am sure glad that the ASV made these verses clear by translating the word "covering" as "veil," taking away the myth that the hair is the covering. It would be a terrible burden for all men to bear--the literal consequence of that interpretation.
DHK

 

Tam, I've been pondering this same question.

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]A simple answer:
Yes they do.
DHK

 

If one is to be literal here in the belief that this passage is speaking about headcoverings instead of authority, then one must be literal in the fulfilling of the command they believe is here. I doubt that the ladies in DHK's church wear headcoverings that were spoken of in Paul's epistle. They may wear hats, a veil, or a scarf, but if they want to literally fulfill what is spoken of as being worn in Paul's day they need to have their entire head covered, totally covered. You can still see this tradition in middle eastern countries today. A hat is not the head covering mentioned in Paul's writings.

Bro Tony

 

This is where cultural differences come in. Different societies and cultures may cover their heads in different ways with different styles accoriding to the materials available to them. It is the principle that needs to be adhered to. The principle is headship. A woman's head needs to be covered in as much as man's head needs to be uncovered. It doesn't say how a man should uncover his head either, but the answer is fairly obvious. He should not wear: a veil, a hat, a headcovering of any kind. One needs to go back into American history only a few years. What was the custom in your great grand-parents day. I am sure that in their day, no matter what the church affiliation was, women had their heads covered. It has only been in the last fifty years or so that this practice has been discontinued largely because of the secularization of our society, and the conformity of Christians to the world.
DHK

 

You are confusing your facts. Islam started the custom of wearing the "burqa'"
A burqa' covers every square inch of a woman's body including just a small veil-like piece infront of the eyes where she is able to see out of. You cannot see any part of her, but she can see her. The principle is that she is saving her body for her husband to see, and for none other. Veils that covered that entire head were very common, well before that time.
DHK

 

I am not quite sure that I can comprehend why God would convict someone to do what He has not commanded them to do?

 

I would be in agreement with DHK about the origin of the type of headcoverings in Paul's day.

I would not be in agreement concerning the cultural distinction made at this point. It seems you have made a decision as to where you will determine what is and what is not cultural. It seems to me that is what others also are doing. You have agreed the issue in this passage is headship. My wife does not wear a headcovering and there is no issue of headship in our relationship. The headcovering was a symbol of headship in that cultural setting when Paul wrote his epistle. Today it no longer is a symbol in our culture. Now if a wife came to church in our day in entising clothing, that would be a shame to her and her husband's headship.

It seems everybody in this passage makes a decision where they will draw the line as to where the cultural influence fits in. We just draw that line at different places.

Bro Tony

 

The headcovering is a symbol of headship. Correct. Therefore wear it. That is a command. How can you escape it. Paul deals with this command thoroughly throughout the first half of this chapter giving no indication that it is ever a choice that one has not to wear it. If a woman is going to obey the Bible she must wear a headcovering for the various reasons given in this chapter:

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 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.
--This is the principle of headship. Christ is the head of the man. The man is the head of the woman.
This sets the foundation for what is to follow and the reason why a woman ought to wear a headcovering.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
--This gives the context right away that it is not speaking of the hair being a covering. Paul is not referring to men either keeping their hair on or taking their hair off--ludicrous.
Secondly, what would kind of covering would a man be wearing? This speaks to culture. In the eastern cultures they would be wearing a type of turban, something like the Sikhs, though not so elaborate. If a headcovering always meant the same thing--a veil covering the whole head for example (or a lacy shawl) could you imagine a man wearing this type of headcovering?
No, men take off your baseball caps, your cowboy hats, etc., not your lacy frilly scarves and hats. Let's use common sense here.

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.
--Again we are back to the principle of headship and the consequences thereof. If the woman refuses to have her head covered she ought to be shaven bald. That is the severity of disobeying this command. It is not to be taken lightly. Not wearing a head covering dishonors her head--that is it is dishonoring to both her husband, and thus in turn dishonoring to Christ. She dishonors her head. Her head is her husband. God made it that way, even as the head of the man is Christ. If she refuses to obey she should be shaven bald. She is a disgrace to the Christian faith, and the order that God has set in the home and in the church.

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.
--For further emphasis, Paul repeats himself. If the woman refuses to be covered let her be shorn. This is in the form of a command, for all those looking for one. Since it is a shame for a woman to be shaven, then the obvious solution to the problem is to wear a head covering. I don't know how much Paul could be any more emphatic. Ladies, if your going to be obedient to the Bible, you will wear a headcovering. It is as simple as that.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
--Man was made in the image of God, therefore he ought not to cover His head. God covers Him. God is his protection. Woman was made of man. The protection of woman falls under man. The headcovering is symbolic that she is submissive to man, as was directed by God in the curse in Genesis 3. This is God's directive will right from the beginning of Genesis.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
--Further explanation on the same theme. God created man. Then from the man he created the woman. The man has authority over the woman. The man is the head of the household. It doesn't have anything to do with dominance; we are equal in God's sight. God has given us different roles in life. The role that he has given man is to be the head of the household. The sin of Adam is attributed to Adam because he openly rebelled against God, whereas Eve was deceived. Even back in the garden Adam had authority over Eve.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
--This is an allusion to what happened in the garden, and is carried on to modern times. The woman was created for man; not vice-versa. The headcovering symbolizes this.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
--For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. These things the angels desire to look into--as they desire to look into the entire matter of salvation which they also do not understand. This is all a part of holiness--obeying God's command even when we don't understand the reason for why the command is given. Here God gives another reason for wearing a headcovering. The angels are watching. If that were the only reason; it is reason enough. The angels are watching, and therefore wear a headcovering.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
--In a marriage relationship both husband and wife are one. No man is an island. We both have to give 100%, not 50/50.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
--Speaking of God's order in creation. He created man first, but man cannot live without woman. Yet in God's great design of all things we give glory to God for all things are of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
--Here is the climax. Paul has set forth all the evidence that you need. Now you be the judge. Is it proper that a woman pray to God (in the church especially) with her head uncovered? By this time the question ought to be treated as rhetorical. The answer is now obvious and clearly apparent.

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
--An illustration taken from nature--it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
--It is also a shame for a woman to have short hair, or to be shaven. Her hair is a covering (different Greek word used here than previously used for covering). The other words used for coverings in the ASV are translated "veil," whereas this word "covering" is not. A woman's long hair is indeed a glory to her as opposed to short hair on a woman. Nature itself teaches us that principle. This verse in no way negates the necessity of wearing an actual head-covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
The custom referred to here is one of being contentious. Many of you are being contentious about the subject of head-coverings. Paul says we don't have a custom of being contentious. Don't contend with God about wearing a headcovering; just do it.
DHK

 

Sadly, I didn't notice this topic until very late this evening. Since I work a hard nine hour day in the hot sun, I'm too tired to type in my response right now, but rest assured it will most likely be posted within the next 24-48 hours. As a former Baptist turned Mennonite, I feel very qualified to answer on this subject. I've conducted over 100+ hours of recorded study time on this subject alone over the past 2 years and am able to go into some detail concerning this subject. While I am not seminary trained, my answer regarding this issue has been regarded by several theologians as a particularly powerful argument for the continued use of headcoverings today. You may ask why I'm telling you all this, and I'll gladly answer that. I don't want you to think that I've studied this subject for a week with a concordance and commentary and suddenly decided that I have the answer. It took quite some time for me to come to the viewpoint that I've arrived at, and that was only after I was quite certain that the Apostle Paul was commanding the use of headcoverings. I realize that my view is not a popular one, and I've taken alot of heat for this before. I sincerely hope that each and everyone of you reading or posting in this thread will take the time to fully read my post tomorrow concerning this issue. I also hope and pray that you will not only read it, but that you will study it and pray about it. I don't think that this is something that should be flippantly read. I ask you to prepare yourselves to read with an open mind.

In Christ's Love,
Will Rogers

 

I will be looking forward to reading it. Thanks.

 

As long as you will do the same when some post their "qualified answer" that might not agree with yours.

I think THIS sums it up pretty well:

Love in Christ,
CJ

 

Love in Christ,
CJ </font>[/QUOTE]We used to have another poster that used the same argument in other areas. His name was Zinger, or was it Singer, I can't remember now for sure.
His argument was that the Lord had not convicted him to be baptized.
Neither had the Lord convicted him to join a local church.
You know, there are plenty of unsaved folk out there that the Lord hasn't convicted to be saved. Does that give them an excuse? (Rom.1:20)
DHK

 

I Corinthians 11:2-16
Now I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth 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, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul's introduction here is one of praise, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you." Paul had spent around a year and a half at Corinth, teaching them the doctrines of Christ and the Word of God. The very first part of this chapter is devoted to the question of whether or not Christian women should be veiled. It would be correct to assume that most of the women in the church at Corinth practiced the wearing of a headcovering from the information given in verse 1 "you...keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you."
The Greek word for 'ordinances' is paradosis meaning 'tradition.' However, it would be incorrect to attach a negative connotation to it merely because it is translated tradition. In today's culture, 'tradition' is something that is not considered very reliable. However, in Greek, it dealt with facts or doctrines. So what Paul is doing here is praising them for keeping the doctrines which he had delivered to them during his stay in Corinth.
There are generally three arguments against veiling or headcovering, which will be discussed here. The first is that it was a local and temporary practice, secondly that it is a trivial matter, and thirdly that the hair is the covering spoken of in I Corinthians 11.
The first reason is the one most frequently given by those who do not practice the veiling. The claim is given that in the city of Corinth, the prostitutes would shave their heads and wear wigs as a symbol of their availability. Thus, with this problem being gone, there is no reason for women to still wear headcoverings. The following counterpoints are given against this argument.
1) Paul says in verse 16 that this was practiced by "the churches of God." This was not merely a local practice, but was practiced throughout all the churches. Church history shows as well that this was widely practiced. Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian both wrote of the veiling. Clement taught on the subject in his book Instruction. This writing was meant to be a handbook on living the Christian life. Tertullian also wrote on it in several writings, including a thesis entitled On the Veiling of Virgins. Some were challenging whether or not virgins were to be veiled as well, although they did not challenge the issue of veiling for married women. Tertullian notes in his writing that the veiling is primarily a Christian custom stating: "But I will not, meantime, attribute this usage to Truth. Be it, for a while, custom: that to custom I may likewise oppose custom. Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men; and antecedently, I think, to certain (founders, who shall be nameless). Those Churches therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same authority of custom (to appeal to); in opposing phalanx they range "times" and "teachers," more than these later (Churches do). What shah we observe? What shall we choose? We cannot contemptuously reject a custom which we cannot condemn, inasmuch as it is not "strange," since it is not among "strangers" that we find it, but among those, to wit, with whom we share the law of peace and the name of brotherhood. They and we have one faith, one God, the same Christ, the same hope, the same baptismal sacraments; let me say it once for all, we are one Church. Thus, whatever belongs to our brethren is ours: only, the body divides us."

The issue arose because of the Greek word Paul used for the term women. Paul had utilized the word 'gynee,' and some wondered if this included the unmarried women, however, the veiling was never in question. Today 'gynee' is understood to mean all adult women.
2) The writings of the early church fathers indicate that the veiling was something outside of the norm in their culture.
3) Whenever the Apostle Paul was advocating that one's actions should be modified because of cultural considerations, he always gave a full explanation for why he pursued this point of view. We find this in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 where he writes concerning eating meat that had been offered to idols.
4) Paul made no mention of the Corinthian prostitutes and the veiling in this passage, or elswhere for that matter.
5) The teaching on Communion, found in the same chapter, is accepted by all believers. For what reason is the preceding passage rejected?

The second argument is that this is a trivial matter since it was only mentioned once in scripture, and as such should be left up to the individual believer.
1) Paul's teachings are a part of God's Word. Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God(II Timothy 3:16), it must still be in effect. God should not have to tell His children more than once in order for them to obey.
2) Many scriptural practices are still in use today that are mentioned only once. For what reason is the headcovering passed over?
3) The commands of God are never trivial. They are an evidence of one's faith in God, and when one disobeys, it shows their lack of faith.

The third argument is that since verse 15 states that a woman's hair is her covering, that no extra covering is needed. This is a weak argument, and easily nullified.
1) Paul uses two different Greek words that are translated 'covering' in this passage of the King James Version. It is for this reason that other versions properly make a distinction between the two. The first word is katakalupto and is used in verses 4-7. In verse 15, where the word is connected to hair, the Greek word is peribolaion. This shows us that the Apostle was making a distinction between the hair and the covering.
2) Common sense would dictate that the hair is not the covering mentioned in the first part of the chapter. In verse 6, it says 'if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn.' If her hair is her covering, and she has no covering(ie, hair), then where is the logic in shaving her head twice?
3) In verse 4, the Apostle tells us that a man should not have his head covered during prayer. If the hair was his covering, he would have to take off his hair during praying and prophesying, and put it back on when he was finished!

It was not until the past hundred years when the veil ceased to be practiced in the church. With the advent of the women's rights movement, the veiling all but disappeared. A former radical feminist wrote of the veiling stating that she never received such respect from men as when she put on the veiling. But what was once practiced universally by the church has faded away to a few denominations which are considered to be 'quaint' or 'antiquated.'

Many claim that a woman's hair and the veiling are the same thing, however, a cursory examination of the Greek words used shows that this is not the case. The Apostle Paul uses two different Greek words in this passage. The first is Katakalupto and means "veil," and is used in verses 4-7. The second is used only once and is Peribolaion meaning "covering" and is used in verse 15. The Apostle used two different words to make sure that his meaning got across.

Verse 16 is most often brought up by those who don't believe in the veiling as a counter-argument to the preceding passage. The fact is, that in this verse the Apostle was making a sarcastic statement. Paul was saying "It would be ridiculous for somebody to be upset about this since this is practiced in every church of God."

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
I look forward to your comments on this. I hope I haven't put anything out of place on this, as I'm half asleep right now. Hopefully tomorrow I will have more time to go over any replies to this message.

 

Question:
What constitues a biblical new testament headcovering for women?
What do the scriptures say about the regulation or standard of the headcovering?
The answers sure will be interesting.

 

Interestingly enough, scripture doesn't give the regulation size of the headcovering. But then again, I'm sure you knew that. Some Mennonites and most Amish recommend a large white covering which covers the entire back of the head. Some wear a black lace type thing that goes on the top of the head. The two Baptist girls I know that wear headcoverings use kerchiefs(bandanas) as headcoverings. I would say that a Biblical headcovering is most definitely not a hat as some would say, but rather is a cloth which is what most covered women use.

 

If this is the case, How is it that it is a command and not a matter of personal liberty?