Headcover

Today there is no conceivable harm. Nobody thinks women without head covering are outomatically immoral. Nobdy is shocked on seeing such in church, they know it happens all the time.

 

Please specify what you are referring to. I don't understand your question.

The Apostle Paul gave it as a command under inspiration from the Holy Spirit. What makes you think it's not a command?

 

http://www.messianicjewish.net/cgi-bin/store/quikstore.cgi?category=scarves&page=webstore.html&search=yes

HERE SOME PRETTY SCARFS HEAD COVERINGS

 

Wait! What about hair spray? It covers the head. So you see? Nearly all women have a headcovering.

 

http://www.prayercoverings.com/
http://www.designsbysherylann.com/headcoverings.html
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/head_covering.htm

http://www.christiancoverings.com/store/

here is more head coverings


hope these help

[ May 07, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: dawna marie ]

 

here is another one

http://www.headcoverings.com/

 

So does dust and dandruff.
How much hairspray do you think the Corinthians used John?
DHK

 

Hellenistic societies varied as far as headcovering practices. If memory serves correctly, the People of Corinth often wore headcoverings, while the people of, say, Athens, did not. It varied as much s headcovering pracitces in the US vary today.

Interestingly, many veils, at least ones worn by uppercrust society, were sheer, and quite see through. This allowed a rich woman to also show off her expensively styled hair (hair care was a symbol of wealth in soem Greek societies), while protecting her head with a veil if the fashions dictated.

So, if a woman wears a plastic see-through bonnet, does that constitute a headcovering? The legalistic approach would presume that the headcovering is supposed to "cover", thus conceal, the hair, wouldn't ya think?

So what constitutes a biblically appropriate headcovering? Baseball cap? Visor? Islamic type headscarves? Yamulka? What about the popular bandana-type headscarves that are so popular amongst the teens today? What about a wig? Or a pillbox hat?

 

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. (ASV)

 

That doesn't answer my question.

 

The issue is one of headship. Your question is but a red herring. It is irrelevant really. Christ is the head of the man. The man is the head of the woman. The symbol of this headship that the man is the head of the woman, and that she is to submit to his authority, is the covering on her head. Paul doesn't address culture, for the Bible speaks to all cultures. Paul, speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gives a command that can be obeyed by Eskimos, to Nigerians, to Hatians, to Afghanis, and all around the world no matter where you live, and what materials are available to you. If seal skin is the only material that you can make a headcovering out of then so be it. Paul does not speak to culture. The principle is a headcovering, and its consequent symbolic meaning of headship. The woman needs to cover her head. If she doesn't she needs to be shaved. That much is clear. The rest you can figure out. Your best rule of interpretation is:
When common sense makes good sense why make it nonsense?
DHK

 

The issue of headship is a spiritual issue, and Paul uses a cultural reference to make his point. That doesn't make the cultural reference mandatory for today.

The Bible talks of putting new wine in old wineskins. However, since we today have syhtnetic wiseskins and bottles that can be reused, is it then a sin for us to reuse wineskins? No. There's a need for us to understand the spirital significance that new wine in old wineskins represents, but there's no contemporary biblical ban on reusing wine containers. Likewise, there's a need for is to understand the spiritual significance that headcovering represents, but there's no contemporary requirement to wear a literal headcivering.

 

If one were to lift the issue from its context, why not do the same with 1 Cor. 14:29-31?

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;"

 

The Bible is a living Book. It is contemporary, and not stuck back in the first century only because you want it to be. One of the reasons (other than headship) given for wearing a head covering is "for the angels."
Do the angels change with culture too??
By your logic, perhaps the angels would hate homosexuality in Lot's day, but now it is culturally acceptable to them, thus we haven't received any such judgement. The culture has changed. Seems like good logic. eh?
Does sin become more socially acceptable to God and angels because culture has changed. Is this what you are saying?
DHK

 

I said nothing about sins changing with culture. Sins are sins through time eternal. Headcovering was not a sin issue when the NT was written. Neither is it a sin today. However, recognition of spiritual headship was pertinent then, and it pertinent now.

By your logic, the sun revolves around the earth. After all, that's what the Bible clearly says, doesn't it?

 

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

The Corinthians had written to Paul about certain problems in their church. Paul wrote this epistle to address these problems, many of which are applicable to us today.
In chapter five he addresses the issue of immorality.
In chapter six he speaks to the issue of taking each other to court.
In chapter seven he speaks about matters related to marriage.
In chapter eight he deals with the problem of meat being offered to idols, and the issue of offending one's brother.
In chapter nine he defends his apostleship.
In chapter ten he warns them of idolatry.
In chapter eleven, he addresses the issue of women wearing a headcovering, and then the Lord's Table.
Chapters 12-14 are about the spiritual gifts.
Chapter 15 is a thorough discussion of the Resurrection.

There were problems in the church at Corinth as there is in every church. One of the problems (sins) was that some of the women were not wearing a headcovering. This was an act of rebellion, for it was not showing submission to authority--it was rejecting it.

If we regard this as cultural and not applicable to us today, then why not say the same thing about Paul's instruction to the Corinthians concerning the Lord's Table only a few verses later in the same chapter.

You said: "By your logic the sun revolves around the earth."
No, not at all. Where do you think "the Bible clearly teaches that? The Bible is not a book of science, but it is scientifically accurate. If you want to believe taht the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat, that is your choice, but don't pin such things on me.

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.

So if they disobeyed the divinely inspired words of Paul, it was not sin?? What does the Scripture mean "Let her be covered." Would some other translations help? As far as I understand the Bible disobedience is sin.
DHK

 

I'm sorry, but Paul was not making a Cultural reference. Had you read my quote from Tertullian on the "Veiling of Virgins," you would have noted that he made it very clear that the practice of veiling was not a Greek or Gentile custom, but a Christian. More than one early church writer wrote of the headcovering and made it clear that the headcovering was not a cultural issue. It was actually outside of the norm.

 

Bumpity.

 

No reason to bump. There' nothing here to discuss. I stated, and showed ample support for Paul referring to a cultural item of the time, and you don't agree with that. There's really nothing more to be said.

 

You haven't provided evidence John. What "evidence" you have provided has been amply refuted. The question stands. God gave a command to the Corinthians. You said or implied that to disobey that command was not sin. True? I say it is. If it was sin in that time, then it is sin today.
DHK